Common Sense and Comity

Site moved

2007-12-31T20:22:00.001-09:00

To start off the new year fresh, this blog has moved to http://gotsense.wordpress.com. Thanks for reading. And as coal for power goes, the journey isn't over quite yet.

Local Sustainability Efforts

2007-12-12T07:12:00.000-09:00

Suzy Fenner, a Fairbanks resident, has taken up the mission to put together a grassroots effort to encourage sustainability. You can read about the nascent efforts at scanfairbanks.blogspot.com. I'd been encouraging the development of a clearinghouse of efforts locally and statewide so that we all can communicate and coordinate better. One good source for that has been the Northern Alaska Environmental Center page on global warming, which has a number of good links.

Consider the Source

2007-11-17T14:16:00.000-09:00

I see that some haven't given up casting seeds of doubt on working for mitigation of climate change causes and consequences. Resource Development Council board member Paula Easley's "Sky is not Falling" editorial is a case in point. She grabs at discredited or irrelevant straws to argue that global warming isn't any fault of ours and, anyway, we will benefit from warmer weather, so get ready. One might think her "facts" sound reasonable unless you know her sources are industry sponsored and/or cherry-picked, and her snide comments about various respected folks that disagree with her. In the same 11/17/07 Newsminer was an article on how the IPCC, a pretty broad group of internationally renown scientists, just released their 4th report on climate change www.ipcc.ch , even more convinced of the need to take action to both mitigate and adapt.

The Resource Development Council has a partisan agenda, representing the legacy extraction industries which look for the short term buck. Alaska, with all our resources, are a part of their world view. Ms. Easley lambastes those for grassroots lobbying for action to address climate change, but not the resource industries who have spent billions lobbying to have it their way. Exxon Valdez settlement delays, millions in feel-good TV, radio, print, and mail out ads? Legislator/congressional payoffs anyone? While some industries may be starting to see the light of preserving our environment for the future, apparently the RDC through Ms. Easley, has yet to get the word.

MEA cancels coal plant idea

2007-11-10T17:48:00.000-09:00

Reading the Nov. 10, 2007 ADN, MEA (Matanuska Electric Association) announced it is canceling efforts to build a large coal plant in Matsu. They do have issues with not having any of their own generation, but this idea seemed ill advised.

It was reported that MEA will stop pushing this coal plant idea due to poor economics. This seems like face saving. What should be apparent is that, forward looking, there will be less economic incentive to burning coal with CO2 emissions factored in. A wise decision, for whatever the stated rationale.

If those proponents for coal are so gung-ho, why haven't they worked to buy power from the AIDEA-GVEA-Usibelli experimental coal plant in Healy that cost the state and feds nearly $400 million? Of course, that's only a 50 mw plant.

Long term decisions need to be made with carbon footprint considerations. We're all on the same planet (some more than others) and share a common future with climate change mitigation and adaptation. Coal might be plentiful, but about the most destructive form of non-renewable energy in terms of CO2 and toxic emissions.

Seems like a natural gas bridging solution for just in-state use would allow us about 500 years of stability. What's the big push to export?

That being said, I hope someday MEA will get be able to be less political and confrontational in its approach to getting things done. They may feel besieged, but maybe there is a reason.

Changing Our Resource Culture

2007-10-24T21:53:00.000-08:00

I don't know everyone can walk and chew gum at the same time, but we are in the position of having to change our culture toward the resources we consume or waste. At the same time, we need to start taking obvious and radical actions to reduce our carbon footprint.

Weighty, heavy task. We are continuing to be told the consequences of failing to act. Besides the IPCC, who co-won the Nobel Prize for Peace along with Al Gore, every day we see new impacts of climate change. I heard today that the climate change models were too safe in estimating the CO2 carrying capacity of the warming
oceans. The data shows that in earlier times, similar ocean warming caused mass extinctions. We have an early entry with the polar bear.

I was talking with Alaska Lt. Governor Sean Parnell yesterday evening following a presentation he gave, exhorting UAF students to get active in helping impacted communities like Shishmareff (ocean storms eating away the town) or Hooper Bay (burgeoning landfill). I pointed out that his examples are all attributable to our failure to account for the after-cost of using resources, without those costs being built into the original purchase. What to do with the leftovers after one is finished consuming the part we are interested in? Leftover from burning fossil fuel for heat - CO2 and more. Leftover from that package of Dove bars - plastic and paper. He saw the point, but then said - boy, those are big problems. How are we going to deal with that?

Hello? If we can't our government leaders willing to take the longer view toward species/biome/habitat stabilization/survival, it's pretty hard for the ordinary citizen. A fundamental shift in how we value goods and services is required. Non-egoist economic behavior usually manifests itself after a disaster, such as Katrina, or the recent wildfires in southern California. The longer we wait, the more disasters, the more cost to societies.

One of the comments of the Nobel Committee in awarding the Peace Prize to those who were urging climate change mitigation is that, to stabilize the climate would preserve peace, as opposed to war and conflict over diminishing resources.

We've known many of the things we need to do to be more intelligent and efficient about the resources we use, what is available to us in the form of non-carbon emitting resources for the energy we do use. We've known for decades. And to be fair, we are making some changes, but the time grows shorter as we discuss the more fundamental changes. Even with newer technologies, the old legacy constituencies still keep us from actively recognizing and taking radical actions to change our behavior.

This brings me back to my first point - changing the culture. My view is that, in general, culture can only change from perceived risks and costs. The U.S. is more self-centered, thus more resistant to change. We don't have a culture of commune-ism, such as Europe has. And we certainly don't value self-sacrifice. As the leading resource consumer and carbon contributor, we have so much we can do.

Politicians don't yet feel strongly they have the mandate for that fundamental restructuring of resource economics to cover our kids' butts. We are still tinkering with mini-projects, suggesting "clean" alternatives such as nuclear (oops, Mommy, I left the plutonium in the oven). Some of the states are starting to get it. Alaska, who holds a fortune in resources, still is pretty tentative, preferring to be powerless in the face of change, just willing to adapt, seeing little opportunity or showing the will thus far to mount the bully pulpit as those like Amory Lovins, Al Gore, Bill McKibben, and James Hansen have been doing for decades.

If action only happens after a whack to the head, then please let me help. Whack, whack, whack?

Oh, and for those who don't believe climate change is causing all these extreme weather changes? By denying it, you are saying we have no control over it, thus can't change it and we'll just have to bear the high cost to our societies to adapt.

And if you don't believe that man can change the climate, there are still obvious and rational economic reasons to not consume non-renewable fossil fuels so inefficiently. As I told Sen. Stevens some years ago when I asked him to get behind an increase in CAFE standards, let's get the biggest bang for the gallon we can. There isn't a need to madly export every last drop out of the North Slope of oil or gas as fast as possible? How about giving it the full value? It makes alternative non-polluting energy so much more attractive.

A fundamental change in how we value our resources is needed. Lots of good ideas are out there. Action is what is needed, as fast as we can. As it is, we've done a good job of committing our societies to increased costs of weather damages. Any idea how much it will cost to move southern Florida?

I hesitate to be too cynical with so many positive opportunities for changing that culture and our actions, but climate change inaction just impacted the Doomsday Clock. We were the generation that was going to save the world. Now I have to tell MY kids, "you've got a big job, sorry for the mess."

It's Been a While

2007-09-21T22:47:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since I've posted. Not that I've lost interest in things, but the summer was typically busy and actually quite pleasant sans mosquitoes and yellow-jackets. Fall is now in fall-swing. Some nice evenings of aurora and the colors.... A nice photoblog to give you an idea of what I mean.

A short off-year local election is coming up soon. A neighbor of ours has been running most actively for FNSB Assembly. She's been quite active, but doesn't follow through on neighborly commitments, like cleaning up her junkyard, dealing with a drainage clearing mess on the road which was in her bailiwick. And I guess I also happen to disagree 100% with her platforms of "get the government out of our lives, no taxes." I'll be supporting Kelly Brown, who seems to have a better appreciation for where Fairbanks is now.

I expect to soon have more to say about the University of Alaska's commitment on reducing its carbon footprint and sustainability this fall. I've been actively trying to get some action going to follow up on all the speeches and other verbal commitments.

Utility Plans need full environmental considerations

2007-06-02T12:32:00.000-08:00

Electrical utility plans need to have a full accounting for environmental costs, especially considering the challenges of CO2, climate change and the costs we will bear in the future for having changed so much of our environment.

Matanuska Electric Association is now going out to members to ask about siting for a coal fired power plant, justified by a new state prison to be built. This was recently reported in the Anchorage Daily News. There are a number of members who believe a coal plant has environmental concerns that have not been taken into account. The CH2M Hill Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) commissioned by MEA is not available to the members, so they have no way to review it. I'm happy that GVEA hasn't been so secretive with their IRP and having it available to members for review can lead to a better report. Members don't charge for their input.

In a recent study commissioned by the University of Alaska Fairbanks to look at meeting future power needs, they also came out with a recommendation to build (another) coal fired power plant on campus. Having access to the report helped point out that the economic analysis didn't include any carbon cost analysis, no substantive consideration of alternatives and a near-total wash on further conservation/demand side reductions. You can download the Utility Development Plan at the bottom of the linked page in 3 different sections.

When GVEA performed an Integrated Resource Plan in order to justify the experimental coal plant in Healy in the 1990s, the study found that conservation would cost 1.5 - 2 cents/kwh vs. 3.5 -4.5 cents for a new plant. What the MEA IRP found is anyone's guess. The irony of UAF's plan to add a coal plant is that a coal plant is either on full time or it isn't. There is no load balancing one can do without hours or days for starting a plant. If one builds a 20 mw plant, the most efficient use of that plant is to use 20 mw, not less. This is actually a disincentive for conservation.

I also notice that Governor Palin just awarded Usibelli Coal an award for exporting large quantities of coal to Korea. Rewarding a company for exporting a product that creates pollution that alters our environment? This is the same governor who just created a sub-cabinet level group to find ways that the state can reduce its "contribution" toward climate change.

With all the recent ramp up in discussion over climate change and the added CO2 that coal puts out, it seems like the discussion and research being performed demonstrating all the hazards aren't being translated into action.

Mike Gravel as a democratic candidates for President

2007-04-28T23:05:00.000-08:00

Not sure how many folks watched the April 25, 2007 democratic candidate presidential debate. I was most entertained by former 2 term U.S. Senator from Alaska Mike Gravel, who didn't hold back at all. Kind of like Al Sharpton was in the 2004 Presidential race, but less humorous. Here's a video of Gravel's comments from that debate. Wow.

Alaska State House rejects climate change mitigation opportunity

2007-04-28T20:08:00.000-08:00

The State of Alaska Executive Administration seems to be beginning to take climate change seriously with its creation of a sub-cabinet level group to recommend ways to reduce carbon emissions.

This goal is what House Concurrent Resolution 56 asked the governor to do, only the Legislature passed this resolution in 1989. There has been no action taken on this during the past 18 years. At the time, I had proposed a blue ribbon commission, but HCR 56 is what it turned into.

The Alaska House of Representatives no longer seems concerned about reducing climate change when they have a chance. Reggie Joule's Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission thus far refuses to do more than talk about the impacts and how to deal with the impacts from such things as coastal communities flooding, changing patterns of game, forest fires, pest infestation, permafrost and polar ice caps melting. They don't actually want to recommend anything to prevent these things from happening.

And last week, the House passed HB 229 to provide up to $2.6 billion in tax free bonds to transport coal to the Kenai for gasification, while defeating an amendment by Rep. Les Gara to insure that this increased coal burning would be at least no more harmful than the alternatives. Interestingly, the text of HB 299 justifies these bonds on the basis of being for an essential public and governmental purpose.

The final bill passed unanimously. And so onward to the Senate for its consideration.

Some legislators argue it wasn't the right vehicle to do something on climate change, but there's always some reason. Let's just get started. The longer we wait, the more it will cost to mitigate, with implications only starting to be considered.. Even China is starting to act. Of course they did sign the Kyoto Accord, not like us.

And to follow it up, a number of lawmakers and the governor are opposing listing the polar bear as endangered, as the polar bear habitat on the sea ice is diminishing. They are afraid it would slow oil and gas development, but so grasp at the false assertion that the science doesn't demonstrate the iconic bears and a candidate for the state quarter aren't at risk. Another assertion is that the Endangered Species Act is the wrong vehicle to address climate change. Folks, we need to use whatever tools we have - you've provided no other. And as if we don't get enough bad national press from hunting wolves ....

Years from now, the younger generations will be asking "What WERE they thinking?".

IPCC report out

2007-04-06T21:26:00.000-08:00

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just completed the Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change entitled: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. This international conglomeration of governments and esteemed scientists from around the world continue to document why the world needs to get off its collective butt to mitigate climate change. If we don't, the cost of adapting is going to be much greater and disruptive to societies.

The next two reports, due out later this year, will start to address the harder issues: policy to actually do something. It's about time.

EPA can regulate CO2 emissions

2007-04-02T18:02:00.000-08:00

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the EPA does have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, particularly for cars. The EPA and some states had argued they had no business doing so. This sets the stage for the U.S. to begin to reduce our CO2 emissions, a contributor to climate change, but probably not until Bush's presidency (the long nightmare) is over.

In the meantime, this Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be issuing the second report on climate change. This one is specific toward discussing the impacts from climate change.
James McCarthy, a renown oceanographer and house master of Phorzheimer House at Harvard University, was quoted as saying the more extreme impacts probably wouldn't happen, as we would get a handle on the problems - we're not that stupid. Your opinion?

Alaska taking step forward or backwards in civil rights

2007-04-01T18:04:00.000-08:00

Alaskans go to the polls April 3 to vote in an expensive one issue advisory vote regarding benefits for those partners and dependents that are not the traditional married one man-one woman vote.

I want to thank Reps. John Coghill and Mike Kelly for their hard work and willingness to spend a paltry $1.2 million of state funds for the important task of asking all Alaskans if they want to enshrine bigotry against those “unconventional couples” in the Alaska Constitution, denying those couples and dependents from receiving health and other benefits of gainful employment.

Their efforts have brought many of all stripes together to oppose this vote on April 3 and I’ve appreciated the diversity and chance to get together with good folks.

To be honest, I never really paid much attention to their marital status — we were just people. My wife and I have been "conventionally" married for 30 years, but I feel as threatened by the proposed constitutional amendment as if we were (horrors) "unconventional". I always thought a constitution was to give rights, not take them away.

There is an irony in Rep. Kelly being so eager to deny rights to those who don’t think like him. As one who plays Irish music, I sometimes sing about the discrimination Irish immigrants faced in America — "No Irish Need Apply". How ready some are to deny others those same rights they had to fight for.

Years later, we will look upon this as we did women’s and civil rights — what were we thinking? I hope a resounding “no” vote from the people will put an end to this.

Here's a link to HJR 9 - the current legislative language for the proposed constitutional amendment. It's actually quite a bit different than the April 3 ballot language. Here's where to keep track of its progress.

I also wrote a blog entry back in December on this issue.

Some articles and opinions

April 1, 2007
Letters to the Editor
Rep. Mike Doogan opinion article
Anchorage Daily News article
Anchorage Daily News opinion

March 31, 2007
News article in the Daily Newsminer
Another news article about the legislative proposal itself, which the proponents aren't even waiting to see what the advisory vote says.
News article on Rep. Kelly trying to sway the vote, using his legislative office. Interesting that the governor didn't feel comfortable telling Alaskans how to vote, but Kelly does. His opinion article April 1 says essentially what was in the letter, which you can view here.
Letters to the Editor

March 29, 2007
Letters to the Editor
More Letters to the Editor

March 28, 2007
Letters to the Editor

March 27, 2007
Letters to the Editor

March 26, 2007
Opinion by Mary Bishop
Letters to the Editor

March 25, 2007
Opinion by Jean Laurencelle
Letters to the Editor

March 24, 2007
Letters to the Editor

March 23, 2007
Letters to the Editor

March 21, 2007
Letters to the Editor

March 20, 2007
Dermot Cole idea on banning divorce
Coghill's opinion AGAIN, for what it is worth. He feels so threatened. I'm not sure that those unconventional couples realized what power they have.

March 18, 2007
Katherine Gouyton opinion
Coghill's opinion

Alaskans are capable of adapting

2007-02-18T05:32:00.000-09:00

A friend recently posted the following and I thought I would share it. I've recently been in eastern Massachussetts during a Nor'easter (dropping 4"-8" of snow) that scared everyone so much, they closed all the schools for 1-2 days.
Even Burger King closed. The driving conditions weren't very bad, as there was more snowplowing equipment than cars on the roads. The next day, front-end loaders, pickup plows, bobcats and the like were hard at work clearing all the parking lots and business approachs.

There were a lot of cars frozen in place where street parked. A couple days later in Boston, residents were chipping their way out. My rental car, admittedly not up to my 4WD standards at home, had to get pushed out of metered street parking twice and I helped others get out. Kind of like City of Fairbanks streets after a snow and a trial warm spell simulating breakup.

So here goes.

60 above zero:
Arizonians turn on the heat.
People in Alaska plant gardens.

50 above zero:
Californians shiver uncontrollably.
People in Fairbanks sunbathe.

40 above zero:
Italian & English cars won't start.
People in Alaska drive with the windows down.

32 above zero:
Distilled water freezes.
The water in Anchorage gets thicker.

20 above zero:
Floridians don coats, thermal underwear, gloves, wool hats.
People in Alaska throw on a flannel shirt.

15 above zero:
New York landlords finally turn up the heat.
People in Alaska have the last cookout before it gets cold.

Zero:
People in Miami all die.
People in Alaska close the windows.

10 below zero:
Californians fly away to Mexico.
People in Alaska get out their winter coats.

25 below zero:
Hollywood disintegrates.
The Girl Scouts in Alaska are selling cookies door to door.

40 below zero:
Washington DC runs out of hot air.
People in Alaska let the dogs sleep indoors.

100 below zero:
Santa Claus abandons the North Pole.
Alaskan drivers get upset because they can't start the Mini-Van.

460 below zero:
ALL atomic motion stops (absolute zero on the Kelvin scale.)
People in Alaska start saying..."Cold 'nuff fer ya?"

500 below zero:
Hell freezes over.
Alaska public schools will open 2 hours late.

Caifornia - leader in energy conservation models

2007-02-18T05:05:00.000-09:00

One wouldn't think California could be a model for energy conservation. Yet, over the past few decades, they have continually looked to reduce their consumption of energy in ways that other states bypass. Here's a recent article that details some of their efforts.

It seems that a combination of price and regulatory changes have been the most effective. We have certainly been experiencing the price effect, but in Alaska and most other states, not much has happened on the regulatory side.

Long AND short term of course, reducing consumption is a win-win for the consumers and inhabitants of this planet. It doesn't take much to accomplish effect changes over time, but the longer we wait, the cost of not making those changes could bankrupt us. But I don't need to preach as much as the policymakers need to take significant action.

Women's Tennis Tops Tie Tongues

2007-01-24T21:28:00.000-09:00

It takes a different set of linguistic skills to keep up with current women's professional tennis. Serena is the apparently rare exception. Excerpted from a recent article.

"Serena overcame Shahar Peer ... to next play Nicole Vaidisova who beat Lucie Safarova. Vaidisova was the highest rank after Safarova upsent Amelie Mauresmo and Peer ousted Svetlana Kuznetsova, though Vaidisova lost to Kutznetsova at the last French Open. ... Williams' win over Nadia Petrova ... 4th round win over Jelena Jankovic. Pockets of Israeli fans cheered Pee [sic]. Maria Sharapova downed Vera Zvonareva and will play Ana Chakvetadze. Kim Clijsters will play Martina Hingis.

Try saying the previous paragraph fast several times over.

Ethanol is the answer?

2007-01-23T13:12:00.000-09:00

With the talk that the energy component of the State of the Union will be highlighting making more ethanol, there is little discussion to address that, while ethanol might be a way to reduce our oil consumption, it has a lower efficiency (less miles/gallon) than gasoline and more importantly, depending upon the fuel source and location, costs more to make. Shouldn't we also consider the impact of diverting a lot of food source options away from food, which impacts the costs of those foods. Seems like the discussion over ethanol needs to be more refined and targeted. An article in the Washington Post starts to address this. The more fundamental answer is to reduce the demand, whether by efficiency or technology.

"Nucular" Power

2007-01-22T06:28:00.001-09:00

With the State of the Union coming soon, the buzz is that Geroge Bush will talk about enhancing "nucular" power as a means of combating global warming and increasing our energy independence.

Nuclear power has been given some incredibly large incentives in the last few congresses under the Republicans. I ran across an article that explains a lot more than I could.

The push for nuclear energy is compelling except for the fact that accidents are extremely deadly and that we don't have safe places to put spent fuel that remains radioactive for thousands of years. It takes hubris to think we could be smart enough or know enough about what the future holds for a section of the earththat far ahead. That hasn't stopped them from trying.

A story more close to home is a plan hatched by Toshiba to put a sodium based nuclear reactor in Galena Alaska, a mostly native village and formerly a forward Air Force base housing a handful of fighter jets. What I find particularly interesting is that this reactor can't be licensed to be installed in Japan, home country of Toshiba, so they suggest it for the Indians of rural Alaska? Smallpox infested blankets anyone?

I'd be more inclined to support fusion over fission, as that would leave us without the nasty radioactive byproducts. We haven't figured out how to do this yet, but the sun has. Maybe we could spend a large portion of our nuclear subsidies to subsidize solar energy? Hello? Is anyone there?

Alaska on the wrong side of climate change

2007-01-05T19:50:00.000-09:00

The state of Alaska is on the wrong side of climate change. We are both heavily favored for major impacts, but the State of Alaska has also taken the wrong side in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case has been argued before the court, with a decision due by June 2007. Justice Anthony Kennedy appears to be the swing vote.

One report out of the Anchorage Daily News recently spoke of the irony of the State of Alaska opposing the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gasses at the same time as our state is most vulnerable from the impacts of those gases in our atmosphere. Gov. Palin is looking toward guidance from the Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission. In a companion article in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner, a longer version of the ADN article (not available on line) quoted Tim Beninendi, staffer to Rep. Samuels, chair of this commission, as saying that the commission wouldn’t address any suggestions of CO2 reduction, only the impacts from doing nothing about the cause.

This limited approach is inefficient, costly, and ill-advised. Since prevention is usually more cost effective than treatment, why not expend some effort toward reducing the things that are creating the negative impacts? It doesn’t serve Alaskans to have the Governor look at only one means of addressing this important issue.

Sometimes logic and common sense seems to baffle those who live in a political environment.

State House Rep. Mike Kelly goes off the deep end

2007-01-01T12:31:00.000-09:00

I find myself deeply disappointed with my State House Representative Mike Kelly. I have always offered him respect even though I disagree with him and he likewise, but in his Dec. 29 Community Perspective, Mike Kelly has gone off the deep end in his righteousness to deny others the same benefits that he receives from his government.

In his grinch-like Community Perspective, Kelly spews hateful animosity in offering benefits to those who live in monogamous relationships not meeting with his approval, despite the Alaska Supreme Court instructing the Legislature and state government otherwise six months ago. That’s right, despite his protestations of not enough time to deal with this legally, he and the other majority members of the Legislature deliberately refused to comply by the ruling of our state’s highest court even after an expensive special session. He doesn’t agree with the Supreme Court, so he suggests we find ways to get rid of the objectionable justices.

Rep. Kelly seems to assume that anyone not in agreement with his view of private relationships is morally corrupt and, like Rep. Coghill, is willing to make this a major effort as a legislator. There was a time when the name Kelly would engender a response "No Irish Need Apply". I want to think our state has a large enough tent for diversity and humanity to rise above such discrimination in the eyes of the beholder.

I’d also offer that we WANT people to have health care. It’s better for them, their employers, private enterprise and society. I’d offer that we WANT people to be in stable relationships. I won’t legislate against them after climbing into their bedrooms to see if their private behavior meets with my approval.

Whether to deny those benefits or not will be voted on by Alaskans this coming April in a constitutional amendment, which I will oppose. I think of a constitution as providing rights, not taking them away. I want ALL our state employees to share in the basic benefits of employment. As long as they continue to offer their good services to our state, they deserve no less.

I appreciate the responses from Rich Seifert in his Community Perspective Dec. 30, the Newsminer's editorial the same day. There was also a short article on the front page.

Intelligent Design

2006-12-26T20:57:00.000-09:00

Nope, not what you were thinking I might be writing about.

Some of you know I was the telecommunications manager for a large company in Fairbanks. While we had many departments, we went from needing 3-4 operators to an automated attendant system incorporated into the phone system. With over 700 extensions

Any system has to have a goal of getting people through their system to where they need to go as quickly as possible as often, it is through an 800 number and more importantly, because it is good for the customer. Yet many systems seem designed to wear out the caller until they give up.

The University of Alaska Anchorage Computer Support Department auto-attendant, which gets funding to provide students, staff, and faculty with support, manages to violate several of the common rules. First, it takes one over a minute before they give you the choices. Even in November, they tell you in advance about their summer hours. Secondly, once they get to the options, you have to wait until all the options are listed before hearing the option to speak to a representative. Once you select that option, you then go into a queue that tell you which caller in line you are. When I called, I started out as caller #6 and eventually ended up as THE caller. The final coup was to then send me to voice mail to leave a message.

When I mentioned this poor design to the Chief Information Officer, he cc'd an email to the manager in charge, saying I had a bad experience and told him to get in touch with me. Not exactly what I'd call a single bad experience, just poor design. Of course, I never heard from that manager, despite his boss' direction.

I also submitted a customer service report through their website, but never heard back. The whole reason I called them was to get a contact in their networking group, because there was no directory listing for that individual that worked. Interesting when the department responsible for creating that directory doesn't even have a functional directory for its own staff.

Another example might be hiding behind FAQ's and not allowing even direct emails to request customer assistance. I was investigating Google Checkout, their competitive effort to eBay. Google, one of the richest companies on the internet, practices this customer obfucation pretty thoroughly. They won't reply to direct emails to support@google.com or customersupport@google.com (or any variety of these). They send you a reply to go to their "contact us" on their website. Nothing one can easily find allows you to get anything other than a canned answer to your problem. If you can find a way to submit a problem to them, the reply tells you how much they value your opinion, but because they get so much correspondence, they probably won't reply. They say they design their system or make changes based upon customer input. Who are they talking to? Any customer who would trust their credit card and bank account number to a company with whom one has absolutely no ability to contact in case of a problem would be nuts. I'm not the only one to notice this as in this
Infoworld article or in this blog. There is an irony in rightfully slagging Google Checkout, when they are now the owners of my blog hosting site AND I used google.com to find sources for this section of my blog.

Amazon merely hides behind email, though does have a toll free number for customer support that is advertised by common folks on non-Amazon sites.

In a voice mail system, the first rule is to always allow a 0 to get to a live human being. Keep your message short. It is a waste of everyone's time to say "please listen carefully as our options have changed to improve service". And, as UAA violates, don't put your troubleshooting tips in the body of the main greeting. Also, don't bury your options more than 3 deep.

There are more obvious design rules, but this is for starters.

It seems as companies use technology to hide behind when dealing with customers. Some probably figure if they can wear a customer down, the customer will give up. That may appear to be a less costly option, but keep it up and that company will lose its customers. Dell found that out when outsourcing the help desk to India. While they might speak perfect English, I could only understand every 5th word and I consider myself very sensitive to accents. The Indian call centers also had a way of very courteously telling you only their canned responses, not actually in solving the particular problem. As a result of lots of negative attention to crappy customer service, some of their call centers were brought back to the U.S.

Of course, if there are so many problems with a company's service that they can't afford to hire enough live operators, they probably are doing something wrong in the quality of their product or core service they are marketing.

Sometimes what it takes to get attention of a company is to search the web for the corporate officers, try to figure out their emails if not obvious and email them. I've been successful with Fedex, Alaska Communications Systems, and Earthlink doing this. Dell was a total waste of my time, though I got a call from a corporate flack who refused to put anything in writing or get back to me on a problem. Even his recommendation for a certified letter to their legal office resulted in no response.

I'm sure others have had experienced similar experiences, but when the CEO actually notices, then it might make some difference. Are there any companies that DO a good job at customer service with technology? I'd like to hear.

Tuna in a Can

2006-12-26T20:37:00.000-09:00

Has anyone wondered why a can of tuna is more like a half-can of water or oil and a half-can of tuna mush? The can still advertises tuna IN water or oil. I can't even count on making two sandwiches with a single can, even if I add lots of extra stuff, like mayo, onions, relish, celery, etc.

Of course, you can buy solid albacore for 3x times the price, but you give yourself 3 times the mercury as well. Such a deal.

GVEA vote results

2006-12-11T23:55:00.000-09:00

It seems like a long effort on my part, but it is time to re-evaluate and move forward.

Here are the vote results for the two ballot issues submitted to members:

* * * * * * * *

For transferring assets to the GVEA G&T
Yes 2653 41%
No 3878 59%

Vote fails. GVEA G&T assets remain with GVEA.

* * * * * * * *

For allowing all but board member and spouses to participate in GVEA alternative energy programs (e.g. SNAP)

Yes 4304 66.4%
No 2180 33.6%

Vote passes. All but board members and spouses may now participate.

* * * * * * * *
Check out the more detailed vote tally

See http://gvea.blogspot.com for comment on this or further GVEA issues.

GVEA second to last posting

2006-12-10T23:22:00.000-09:00

The GVEA website now includes links to the GVEA G&T, under board of directors. We'll see how long it stays there.

After announcing results of the vote Mon. night of the G&T proposal vote, I would like to move GVEA discussions over to a separate blog http://gvea.blogspot.com so we can work to get two way communications between the GVEA organization, board and membership.

It will also allow this blog to get back to other things without being buried in GVEA issues. There is life after GVEA (:-).

GVEA G&T Articles of Incorporation and the smell test

2006-12-07T20:42:00.000-09:00

Listening in on KFAR radio today to board members Dan Osborne and Tom Delong discuss the G&T proposal, one caller requested GVEA to post the G&T Articles of Incorporation. I had already done so, extracted from GVEA G&T's larger RCA filing back in June 2006. A list of documentation was also posted. Sorry they didn't mention it on the radio show as I think I've presented a pretty complete picture of the proposal with links to all sides of the issue.

As far as the radio show, it went on for 1.5 hours. Everyone appeared to have their chance to present their points more than once and got a number of callers to prompt the occasional spirited exchange.

I did hear an official word that 5369 ballots had been turned in as of Wed. 5 pm. Anybody wanting to come down and observe the ballot counting process should know it will be started next Mon. Dec 11, 2006 6 pm in either the GVEA Board Room (space willing) or the Training Room on the 2nd floor of the Operations Bldg. behind the administrative bldg. at GVEA offices on Illinois St. My understanding is that MAC members will be doing the counting.

I've learned a lot during this G&T affair, but one easy recommendation to GVEA is to separate the ballot collectors from the staff who are charged with advocating on one side of the issue, in this case the P.R. folks. Not that I believe any ballot stuffing is going on, but, as Government Affairs Director Tom Irwin might say, "It doesn't meet the smell test".

Turn in those ballots

2006-12-05T22:59:00.000-09:00

I went down to GVEA to turn in my ballot in person a couple days ago. Jokingly I was asked if I wanted to share how I voted. Let them guess.

Besides the full page Newsminer ads, GVEA also produced 15 second radio and TV spots. Very basic, just the big $30 million figure flying across the screen, with any of 4 board members telling you to vote so they could save you money. Kind of reminds me of sale advertisements, where you have to spend to save. Pretty dishonest presentation IMHO, even given the limitation of 15 seconds.

So I hope everyone that will has turned in a ballot. The last time they can be turned in (received by GVEA) is 5 pm next Monday, Dec. 11, 2006.

In Your Face

2006-12-01T23:49:00.000-09:00

GVEA has taken out 3 days of a full page ad to promo the G&T. I've posted it here, but have done a bit of editorial corrections, as I see it. GVEA spent $5,000 of the members' money on this ad.

While missing board member Delong declined to be in the ad due to the advocating for the G&T, perhaps it would have been better to have him included with a caveat that he has concerns about the G&T proposal. It appears kind of one sided as is.

That being said, the ad is pretty much in your face, overkill, far more than one would expect for something that only saves the members' some of their capital credits in advance. I was told by GVEA executive management that, if the members reject this, the issue will be dropped. Others have expressed conspiracy theories, which I would like to reject, but it makes me wonder why not just let the members vote? Is it just the ego of potentially not getting their way?

I do worry that GVEA will fail to meet their financial target in 2006, which will put them in default for the second year in a row, causing them to have to increase their margins. I certainly hope this is not the case, but they've been on a big spending spree the past few years and don't show signs of tightening their belts in a number of areas. I don't mean those that would create safety or service issues for consumers.

I think that there ought to be deeper scrutiny of the budget beyond that of staff and the board, if they can't seem to do it themselves. There was just a several hour 2007 budget workshop with the board, but the board appeared to approve it with only minor modifications. I'm not a big fan of wholesale budget cutting, but we the consumers pay for those who won't strategically conserve during lean times. If it is our utility, as the ad indicates, how about making the budget easily available for members to critique?

GVEA G&T finally has bylaws - the Days of Their Lives

2006-11-28T18:18:00.000-09:00

I attended the GVEA board meeting last night, followed by the second meeting of the GVEA G&T ever since its inception in Dec. 2003.

The GVEA G&T finally has bylaws adopted, the same board as the GVEA Board, and the same officers for now. The appointed CEO is GVEA CEO Steve Haagenson. One board member suggested me for the position - I wisely refused.

There was no discussion over G&T board or CEO compensation, though the board was adequately compensated by their workshop all afternoon and the meeting that went till after 10 pm. I think they received between $800 and $1000 each. They usually get $350 for a workshop and $450 per board meeting. That's over $100/hour. Plus good food.

During the GVEA board meeting board comments, concerns were expressed by staff and board about information that was out in the public about the G&T proposal. Staff felt like they'd been on a constant road show, but heard little back from members. Board directors felt like they'd received a lot of calls from members, some with what some felt was inaccurate information. Some seemed surprised and a bit perturbed. I'd opine that they should be pleased that members are calling on their district reps to explain the G&T proposal.

As far as inaccurate information, I can't speak for others, but I've certainly tried diligently to be accurate. CFO Grubich indicated I blogged that GVEA intended to sell the assets. I only repeated what he and Tom Irwin said is that they could sell the assets. Interestingly, with all the discussion about communications, they don't seem to realize that they are welcome to offer comments on any of my blog entries.

The Town Hall meeting earlier this month at Noel Wien Library was video recorded and one can download the video from the GVEA website. With a really fast connection, it will take at least as long as the meeting of 1 hour 40 minutes - it's 200 mb big. One of the directors commented he tried with his dialup and gave up. It was the first they'd heard of it. For all the great reputation GVEA has for quality IT support, I'm surprised nobody warned the PR folks about this.

One of the more entertaining parts of the meeting was a presentation given by Tom Staudenmeier, a former Matanuska Electric Ass'n board member from the early 1980's. He was lobbying for a regional utility, with Ross Perot's people (whoever they are) to come in and set it up. He was ready to put many utility managers and former legislators in jail as crooks, even Gov. elect Sarah Palin's father-in-law. Chair Bill Nordmark didn't enforce any time limit, so knowing that, I feel that there must be no time limit on member comments (not that I would ever so abuse). Some of the old history makes an interesting read

GVEA membership vote recommendations

2006-11-26T14:26:00.000-09:00

Here are my recommendations for voting by mail. Of course, members should educate themselves before voting. The mail in ballot must be RECEIVED by 5 pm Dec. 11, 2006 at GVEA offices.

To read why I recommend voting this way, please read my Community Perspective in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner. The Newsminer has other GVEA articles and letters available

Ballot 2006

Membership Vote to Approve the Transfer of G&T Assets

GVEA should transfer generation and transmission (G&T) assets to the Golden Valley Electric Association Generation & Transmission Cooperative (GVEA G&T)

I Approve

X I Disapprove

===========================

Amendment of Bylaws

Article IV, Section 3
[this change allows all but GVEA board members and their spouses to participate in GVEA sponsored alternative energy programs, such as SNAP]

X I Approve

I Disapprove

GVEA 2005 deficit and Healy Experimental Coal Plant

2006-11-26T11:29:00.000-09:00

While GVEA members should have received their ballots in the mail about giving away $300 million of assets, more things are happening. Homer Electric Association is working with AIDEA, the state agency owners of the experimental coal plant in Healy, to get the plant restarted. GVEA is in mediation with AIDEA over access to the site, built on GVEA land. More info is available at www.chena.org/gvea.

GVEA has some concerns about making sure they stay in the black this next year and next, as they let themselves lose money in 2005. The stated reason was they had to pay back in December 2005 a few million dollars to members when only 5.88% of their 8% rate increase was granted by the RCA. However, they didn't say is that 1) the 8% was only initially allowed to be collected on an interim and refundable basis, and 2) they were told to give back the money in July 2005 by the RCA. GVEA thus had 6 months to cover the difference, but chose instead to fight giving back to the members what was due them, thus lost money. Another loss in a 3 year period and that puts them at risk for increased interest rates on loans. More about this on the link above.

I certainly like having electricity and am willing to pay a fair rate, but as a member-owner, would like to hear more than just than the one way spin. This is why I encourage regular and effective two way communication between member-owners and their board members. I've set up a separate blog to encourage comments at gvea.blogspot.com

GVEA members weigh in on G&T proposal

2006-11-25T17:02:00.000-09:00

I've had a number of GVEA members contacting me regarding GVEA's proposal to transfer $300 million of assets out of the members' control. I received a fact sheet from some of them, who obviously spent some time on it. It is summarized below. You can view the entire document at www.chena.org/gvea/gt-info.pdf or on their website
www.savegvea.com

GVEA Ballots Hit the Mail 11/20/06!
They should not be thrown out with the rest of your junk mail!

Ballot Issue 1 strips GVEA Members' voting rights forever
We Recommend: Voting NO on Ballot Issue #1, and YES on Ballot Issue #2

By a vote of its members, GVEA is proposing to transfer $300 million worth of power generation plants and transmission lines to a separate co-op known as GVEA G&T (i.e., Generation and Transmission). If Ballot Issue 1 is approved, the new entity would never again need GVEA member's approval for major decisions. Members would lose the ability to vote on matters related to power generation plants and transmission lines, features of ownership that have the greatest impact on our electric bills.

According to our review, numerous problems exist under GVEA's proposal. For example:

• The potential savings which GVEA claims under a G&T co-op are highly inflated. They are based on an “apples and oranges” economic comparison, rather than the financial criteria established by the Rural Utilities Service for loans to utilities.
• Currently, GVEA Ratepayers have the ability under the existing bylaws to intervene on bad decisions such as the Healy Clean Coal Power plant fiasco ($300 million total cost and still rising, which was partially funded by GVEA). Under the GVEA G&T Bylaws, we would have no direct say over a future ill-fated plan or decision.
• GVEA G&T Bylaws could be amended without the explicit consent of GVEA Members to allow:
• Expensive/controversial power generation and transmission projects that could only proceed with minimal public oversight (i.e., such as building a nuclear power plant or routing transmission lines through critical habitat).
• The sale or purchase of major power generation and transmission assets.

As concerned Members, we've made in-depth comparisons between the current GVEA bylaws, those proposed for GVEA G&T, and GVEA management's promotional claims. Our analysis is a detailed 2-1/2 page technical report that summarizes: a) how and why these worst case scenarios and many others could unfold, and b) additional problems embedded in GVEA's promotional materials, and c) the proposed bylaws:

Source Document Links:

• GVEA Bylaws: http://www.gvea.com/about/bylaws/
• GVEA G&T Bylaws: http://www.gvea.com/file/?id=gvea-g-and-t-bylaws---oct06.pdf
• Ruralite GVEA G&T Promotion: http://www.gvea.com/file/?id=nov-ruralite.pdf
• Ballot Issues for 11/20/06 Ballot: http://www.gvea.com/content/?id=gvea-gt&

GVEA G&T Documents and Resources

2006-11-18T21:40:00.000-09:00

Probably time to take a look at the record of some of the official submissions thus far on GVEA's G&T proposal and what else is out there in the media.

Filings with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska

GVEA G&T initial request, lots of details (2 mb):
http://www.chena.org/gvea/u06069_1.pdf

List of filings and orders: http://rca.alaska.gov/data/displayDoc?docID=0703200612334127

Request for confidentiality: http://rca.alaska.gov/data/docketDetail.html?docket=U-06-069

Ruling on first set of issues: http://www.state.ak.us/rca/orders/utils/2006/u06069_2.pdf

GVEA G&T revised bylaws on the agenda to be adopted (or not) at Nov. 27, 2006 G&T board meeting

Other media reports:

Dermot Cole, Fairbanks Daily News Miner

Ester Republic

Perspective on GVEA G&T

2006-11-12T16:26:00.000-09:00

I attended the Healy and Delta Town Hall meetings that GVEA held last week regarding the G&T. Maybe a total of 8-12 people came to each meeting. With the input provided by attending members and the staff, I've prepared some talking points reflecting my view of this. I will say that, at these first two Town Hall meetiings, GVEA seemed at least willing to acknowledge some of the cons to this proposal.

Since that time, I've had other questions from GVEA members and I encourage anyone with question or comments make them in the comment section provided at the end of this blog entry. Just click on "comments" - they can be left anonymously or not.

The final Town Hall meeting will be at Noel Wien Library Auditorium in Fairbanks at 6:30 pm Wed, Nov. 15, 2006. Hope to see our member-owners in attendance, prepared to ask questions. I provide the following to offer my perspective to members in advance.

GVEA members asked to vote to give away $300 million of GVEA assets in exchange for $50 of savings per year and reduced capital credits

Ballots to be in mail November 20, 2006

If GVEA members approve this transfer, it is the last vote GVEA members will have on anything to do with these assets.

If approved, GVEA G&T can sell these assets whenever they want to any entity without any say by GVEA members.

If approved, GVEA members become more disconnected from having input on setting of rates, as the cost of purchasing and transmitting the power will be controlled by the G&T, not by GVEA.

If approved, GVEA members have no rights to call a meeting or elect the GVEA G&T Board of Directors. Directors of the G&T do not even need to be GVEA members or Alaska residents.

If approved, GVEA members will be even more shielded from knowing about the finances of G&T than they are with the finances of GVEA. GVEA members will be even further disconnected from decisions that affect them.

If approved, GVEA will be substantially reducing the capital credits program in the future.

GVEA members have no right to address the GVEA G&T Board of Directors (though may have the right to be present at meetings, if you can happen to find out when and where).

The GVEA G&T may choose to remove themselves from regulation by the only outside experts that look after the public interest, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska.

Discussion

GVEA is proposing to transfer all generation and transmission assets owned by GVEA member-owners to a new company called for short, GVEA G&T. This company is structured as a cooperative with only one member, GVEA, as represented by the GVEA Board. Approval of this proposal only requires 10% of the membership to vote and a majority of those voting to approve. You will see ballots in the mail after November 20, 2006. If approved, GVEA G&T could sell these assets, our power plants, tie-lines, and substations, whenever they want to any entity without any say by GVEA members. This proposal is complex, so let me try my best at an analogy.

As members of a condominium association, every condo owner gives title to their condo to the building manager for which they get a non-binding promise that the new owner will keep their rent down by being able to pay less interest on loans. The Condo Association directs the building manager, the condos can be sold without the residents’ approval. Complicated, yes. Does it make economic sense? Perhaps. GVEA says residential members might save $40-50/year each with this proposal. Is it worth giving away control of our assets? Personally, I think not.

IF GVEA members approve this transfer, it is the last vote GVEA members will have on anything to do with these assets. GVEA board members are not assured of a majority on the GVEA G&T. In fact the draft GVEA G&T bylaws only require 40% representation.

If approved, this will substantively reduce the capital credits program, as the margins now required and later rebated to the members will not be collected. This amount constitutes what GVEA calls a $30 million savings, but is not actual savings as this amount is now paid back through capital credits.

The model proposed for the G&T is unusual in that it is a co-op of only one member, something that occurs with only one or two other electric coops in the United States. It is possible that the G&T could choose to remove themselves from the regulation by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) which examines utility actions in the public’s interest. This could further reduce members’ ability to decide on matters that affect our rates.

GVEA has other ways to save money, such as reducing administrative, travel, and legal expenses, equipment purchases, and less ambitious large projects. GVEA is known by the business community as always wanting things to be first class, but in lean times (GVEA lost money last year), businesses try to conserve.

While your cost of electricity has gone up dramatically partly because of increased fuel costs, GVEA has taken on a large number of expensive projects. GVEA members will have even less input into the G&T, though we will pay the cost of these projects by having to purchase power from the G&T. GVEA has actively solicited large power users such as Ft. Knox and Pogo Mines to buy from GVEA, requiring ever larger power needs. These all have been approved by your GVEA Board of Directors.

There is very little communication between GVEA members and their district representative. Some argue that GVEA members aren’t interested in their co-op except when $1000 prizes and free light bulbs are offered at the annual meeting. I’d suggest that, for all the talk about member-owners being represented by their board, the GVEA board could do more to engage the membership. All the communication you get are GVEA staff generated, such as the Ruralite, bill inserts, website, and other mailings. District meetings were abolished in favor of voting by mail for board. Why can’t board members be encouraged to meet with those they represent? While there is a Membership Advisory Committee, GVEA members have no contact information for these members and the MAC has no means to communicate with members in their district except one-one.

Ultimately, the choice on whether to give away the generation and transmission assets belongs to GVEA member-owners. GVEA must have the members’ vote – it is required by GVEA bylaws. But there is no turning back. If the members approve, these assets are out of GVEA members’ control forever. I intend to vote NO on Item 1 on the ballot.

Please note: Item 2 on the mailout ballot is to allow all but board members and their spouses to participate in GVEA’s alternative energy program. Since we want as many people as possible to participate, I recommend approval on this item only.

GVEA closed policies, G&T actions and more

2006-10-26T18:32:00.000-08:00

The GVEA board met Oct. 23, 2006 and took action on a number of items, even if I wasn't there (:-).

They approved the ballot to go to the GVEA membership. There are two ballot items, one to allow all but board members and spouses to participate in Alternative Energy programs (SNAP), where currently extended relatives and employees can't. This isn't controversial and makes sense for as many people as possible to participate in everyone's best interest.

The second ballot measure is the transfer of GVEA power plants and hi voltage transmission lines to a separate company, GVEA G&T, that is run by GVEA (board and staff), not by the members. There was a motion approved to have the board of GVEA be the representatives on the GVEA G&T. The motion to approve this ballot measure and the vote on the bylaws themselves referenced in an earlier blog was 5-1, with board member Tom Delong on record opposing the G&T transfer.

An interesting aspect is that, now that the board took a vote in the affirmative, ALL board members are supposed to officially support it. This is in accordance to a board policy that was written to insure that the board appears to be all one big happy family to the public. They would likely say that they don't want to be like other more fractious utilities in Alaska like Chugach or MEA.

This policy is very undemocratic and unhealthy, much like my view of some national administrations. GVEA will argue this is common for private companies, but GVEA is a quasi-public company that represents 35,000 families and businesses throughout Interior Alaska, more than the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the school district, and certainly any Interior city. Democracy can be messy, but the outcome of actions becomes better than under the veil of secrecy.

I've thought that this stifles the ability and responsibility of board members to communicate to their constituents. Even the MAC Committee, supposed to foster this communications, is pretty much just a small extension of the board. The membership as a whole remain cut out unless they actively jump in. GVEA doesn't even list the MAC member contact info on the website. I asked for this list from GVEA, but got no response, as the posted list is out of date. Why doesn't GVEA have a way for directors to communicate with their constituents? I'd feel claustrophobic as a director.

I was told that the last and only time the G&T company met was in July 2005, despite a requirement to hold annual meetings. The minutes are not publicly available as they haven't been approved. Now that the G&T board is totally different, it seems odd to have people who weren't present approving the minutes.

I'm told that Dwight Nissen, board member from Delta area district, resigned for health reasons. Nominations are already being taken.

GVEA bylaws for G&T formation ballot to members

2006-10-17T20:06:00.000-08:00

At the GVEA special board meeting Oct. 16, 2006, the board tweaked their recommended bylaws for the G&T (Generation and Transmission) cooperative and approved sending the proposal to the GVEA members, with only one board member opposed. I've linked the final bylaws as well as my extended comments to the GVEA board.

The board will be taking this up one more time Oct. 23, 2006 to approve the ballot language and dedicating funds and hearing a staff plan for communicating this proposal to members. If it is to pass, it must be approved by a majority of GVEA members and at least 10% of our membership must vote.

As readers of previous entries realize, I am not in favor of this proposal and will vote against it. It really comes down to us member-owners of GVEA giving up our $300 million assets (BESS, Healy Power Plant, N.P. power plants old and new, and all our major and minor tielines to this G&T cooperative (of only GVEA) in exchange for the promise of reduced interest rates for the loans out on those assets that are to be transferred to the G&T. The implication is that our electric rates will be reduced by about $30 million over the next 5 years, but GVEA has said we probably won't see rates go down, suggesting that they just won't go up as much.

I think that the trade-off of possible reduced rates isn't worth giving up control of our assets. The G&T will be controlled by a board that may have representatives of the GVEA Board on it, but I expect it to be weighted toward GVEA staff, as it is now totally composed of. I also believe that, as GVEA will be purchasing wholesale power from the G&T, we member-owners won't have the transparency or input that we currently have, particularly with respect to the cost of power. GVEA will become a much smaller operation.

Some have suggested that this is an attempt for GVEA to get some of its operations out from under state regulatory authority (RCA). I believe that GVEA and most utilities would be happy to run their own show without the perceived interference of regulation. I also believe that these regulators help protect the members' and public's interests.

If you have read this far and follow the earlier links and blog entries, you can make up your own mind and be an educated member when presented with the glowing scenario by GVEA.

GVEA back to flawed bylaws of the G&T

2006-10-14T16:34:00.000-08:00

I'm told that GVEA board has reverted back to the original flawed bylaws for the GVEA G&T and will formalize that vote at a special meeting Mon. Oct. 16, 3 pm.

Since this proposal doesn't seem to be well thought out and they are plunging on ahead anyway, I'm thinking there must be some rush to do this, like a financial benchmark that they won't meet, which will cost the utility more. They could then use the offset $30 mm to make up the difference and nobody is the wiser. Speculation on my part. Any comments?

Newman comments on GVEA G&T bylaws draft of Sept. 25, 2006

2006-10-09T14:51:00.000-08:00

As I indicated in the previous entry, I did have some comments on the Sept. 25, 2006 draft of the bylaws. Here they are

And for the record, the RCA filings on the GVEA G&T proposal are on their website.

Sept draft bylaws GVEA G&T

2006-10-09T14:35:00.000-08:00

The GVEA board reviewed some proposed changes to the bylaws of the G&T. So that I could give them a markup of my comments on those changes, they provided me a copy. It was a nice courtesy of them to do so, and also in their best interest as I still have substantive concerns on behalf of the GVEA membership that they should address.

The GVEA Board did have a special meeting on this draft on Oct. 3, 2006, but I have no information on any action taken

Draft G&T bylaws Sept. 25, 2006

Comments to the RCA on GVEA / G&T application

2006-09-23T11:00:00.000-08:00

Below are my written comments to the RCA regarding GVEA's desire to transfer its generation and transmission assets to a separate company, called GVEA G&T.

I didn't have the benefit of any revised organizational structure which the board may have just received a draft. Since comments were due, I went with the facts as presented thus far to the RCA by GVEA / G&T.

Links to other documents filed in this case can be found in my blog entries from a month or two ago.

---
STATE OF ALASKA
THE REGULATORY COMMISSION OF ALASKA

Before Commissioners: Kate Giard, Chairman
Dave Harbour
Mark K. Johnson
Anthony A. Price
Janis W. Wilson

In the Matter of the Application Filed by GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION COOPERATIVE INC. for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Authority to Provide Wholesale Electric Generation and Transmission Service to GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION U-06-69

Testimony of Gary Newman
34 year member, Golden Valley Electric Association
1083 Esro Road,
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
(907) 488-2001 gary@chena.org

Sept. 22, 2006

On June 29, 2006, Golden Valley Electric Association Generation and Transmission Cooperation (G&T) filed the above application, which is to enable Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) to transfer their entire transmission and distribution assets to this separate cooperative of one, itself, called Golden Valley Electric Association Generation and Transmission Cooperation (G&T).

The logical question of how a single entity can be a cooperative seems as odd as a single individual being tried for conspiracy (City of Chicago v. Bobby Seale 1969). However, I will assume this is legally possible in order to address the application itself and what it means to the member-owners of GVEA.

This G&T was created December 16, 2003 by GVEA staff. Bylaws and the Articles of Incorporation of the G&T were submitted to the RCA as part of the filing of U-06-069.

I have substantive concerns about this proposal as presented to the RCA and to the membership of GVEA.

1. Organizational structure of the G&T

A quick review of these documents revealed to me an almost amateur attempt to cut and paste some other organization’s documents without any apparent thought as to maintaining the connection of the GVEA board and membership to the G&T. There are numerous structural defects, confusing language, and more that would make it near impossible for GVEA membership to have any input or or the board any functional control over this separate entity to which several hundred million dollars of GVEA assets are proposed to be transferred.

I brought up a number of these issues in extended discussion with GVEA staff and also to the GVEA board of directors. At their most recent regular meeting, though not on the agenda, the board passed two resolutions. There is no formal record available yet to members, though I was present and attempted to clarify the motions with executive staff following the meeting.

The GVEA board resolved that the G&T board would be the same as the GVEA elected board. They also resolved that the membership would have the same rights and access to the GVEA G&T organization as the membership currently have with GVEA.

These resolutions don’t fix anything of course, as it takes the G&T board to make any changes to the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws (with a bare majority vote, most unusual in my experience, as bylaws and articles of Incorporations shouldn’t be so easily modified). To my knowledge and after asking executive GVEA staff, there have been no meetings of the G&T and attorneys on retainer are reviewing the documents. They don’t expect formal changes to be made until late October or November 2006, too late for me to provide input, as comments to the RCA are due Sept. 22, 2006.

If the attorneys reviewing the G&T documents are the same ones that wrote the original ones, I remain seriously concerned that they can accomplish their assigned task in the interests of the membership. The board and GVEA staff had 2-1/2 years to review these documents before submitting them to the RCA and nobody appears to have had any concerns about them until I brought it to their attention. They seemed unaware of the specific contents as they asserted to the membership and the GVEA board (ref. Ruralite , for example, that the board of the G&T would be the same board as the ones that GVEA members elect, which was not the case. I thus request the right to submit further comments following submission of amended documents by GVEA and/or G&T in the matter of U-06-069. If necessary, I will file a formal petition.

GVEA is proposing to bring this transfer of assets before the membership in November 2006 in accordance with its bylaws Article VIII, Section 2. It is of course an easier bar to achieve by creating a cooperative to receive the G&T assets.

SECTION 2. Other Disposition
The Cooperative may not sell, lease or otherwise dispose of more than fifteen percent of the Cooperative's total assets, less depreciation, as reflected on the books of the Cooperative at the time of the transaction, unless the transaction is authorized in the manner specified in this Bylaw. If the transaction involves a sale, lease or other disposition to another cooperative or to the State of Alaska, and otherwise conforms with the requirements imposed by State law, it must be approved by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members voting on the issue in an election in which at least ten percent of the eligible voters return ballots. If the transaction involves a sale, lease or other disposition to an entity other than another cooperative or the State of Alaska, and otherwise conforms with the requirements imposed by State law, it must be approved by the affirmative vote of not less than
two-thirds of the members voting on the transaction if the number of members voting to approve it constitutes a majority of all the members of the Cooperative.

I find that this is ill-timed because the membership will not have the benefit of all the comments by the RCA, the Public Interest section of the Dept. of Law, nor will all the relevant documents be available to the membership to allow adequate time for review or education. I ask that GVEA be enjoined from holding the required election under Section 2 until such time as the RCA makes a final ruling on GVEA’s application.

2. The operation of the GVEA G&T

GVEA has stated (Ruralite, board meetings) that the G&T will operate the assets transferred to them the same way that GVEA does now. There will be no difference in accounting costs and minimal legal expenses. They assert that GVEA members will realize a $31.1 million savings from reduced margin requirements when borrowing money. Despite requests, GVEA has thus far not been willing to say what members might realize in actual savings from this organizational change e.g. how much per kilowatt/hour. They indicate concern that members might actually expect this savings instead of realizing that the savings would just contribute to reducing future rate increases due to fuel increases (Bradish to Newman). This concerns me on several fronts.

Fuel increases are part of the “fuel adjustment surcharge” which is independent of the tariff and part of the wholesale cost of power, yet the application expects that GVEA would continue this responsibility. Maybe there is a way to work this out, but it seems odd.

Determination of the $31.1 million in savings was made by a consultant to GVEA, RW Beck, of which G&T submitted a one page summary as part of this application. There has been no validation of this. The RCA should request, review, and validate the background documentation and justification of purported savings to GVEA members in the interests of the membership of GVEA.

What major capital expenses would G&T plan beyond the current ambitious projects of new generation in North Pole, paying off BESS and the second Healy-Fairbanks tie-line, substantive extra power requirements from such as Pogo and Delta-Greeley military operations, and continued discussion (and potential financial investment) over the Healy Experimental Coal Plant that would tend to dilute any potential savings? Did RW Beck reflect any real world scenarios?

3. Regulatory challenges with GVEA members’ assets split.

While members have been generally very trusting of GVEA management and board in the past, this proposal by GVEA has some serious defects and raises a number of questions. I want to insure that the RCA will still be able to play a part in working with both elements of GVEA and G&T as seamlessly as GVEA purports the dual organizations will function. From two rate requests of 8% and simplified rate filing, I see attempts by GVEA to reduce regulation. While I recognize there is a cost to regulation, such regulation such as the APUC and now the RCA have played a valuable function in providing expert guidance to GVEA on behalf of the membership (most of the population of Interior Alaska) and the public.

GVEA indicates there will be no difference and the RCA has experience in dealing with this sort of a split organization. I would assume that the RCA can best make that determination.

GVEA members have the feeling that residential and small business consumers pay much more for electricity than the larger commercial/industrial consumers. I realize that the RCA has looked at this, as has GVEA. But to a certain extent, the cards are stacked against the smaller consumers when additional generation is needed (along with the loans required) due to new large commercial/industrial consumer needs. With this increased separation of the generation from distribution, will this make it more difficult to determine true cost by consumer class?

4. GVEA misrepresented facts about the G&T to membership

GVEA first presented a substantive discussion of this in the August 2006 Ruralite magazine sent to all GVEA members. In my view, there was a lot of non-factual material presented. I offer as Exhibit 1 the August 2006 Ruralite article.

a. The boards of GVEA and G&T would be the same (not the case at the time the article was written).
b. The board of GVEA was fully in support of the proposal. (I found no record of this in the minutes and it appeared to still be under discussion in executive session at the most recent board meeting.
c. If approved by the membership, the G&T would be operational by Jan. 1, 2007. This seems odd as this falls before the RCA is expected to rule on U-06-069. ("The commission will issue a ruling in this docket no later than January 2, 2007"). Not to quibble on a day, but presumably some bureaucratic details would need to be taken care of that might take at least a few days.
d. The only difference in operating a separate G&T will be reduced revenue requirements. I mentioned this earlier, particularly as more extensive legal costs will need to be incurred with power sales agreements needing to be approved, different office expenses from letterhead to timekeeping, differential filings for RCA, RUS, IRS, etc. The operation of two separate boards of directors (even if the same people) will take separate notifications, increased meeting costs for which board members are compensated. While they may pale in comparison
e. After the 5 years of estimated $31.1 savings, what then?
f. There have been, to my knowledge, no fall town hall meetings or any mention of this featured on the gvea.com website. I’m not pushing for them, as I think members need the benefit of the discussion that will take place in the course of the filing of U-06-069.

Conclusion

There are serious defects in the G&T organization that need restructuring and modification prior to approval by the RCA or by the membership.

GVEA and G&T will presumably be presenting some additional submissions and modifications to the RCA to try to rectify some of the structural defects of the G&T organization. Any such modifications will need to be reviewed by the RCA and by the GVEA membership.

Any vote of the membership on this proposal should take place AFTER the membership can benefit from the regulatory input and decision of the RCA Commissions, contributing RCA and Public Advocacy staff and public comment on record.

As I understand it, all of this effort on the part of the various utilities that GVEA indicates in its filing have gone through this effort could be avoided if the lender recognized the disparity in lending requirements. I would recommend that the utilities expend some efforts toward educating the lender, should this be an option, saving all these utilities from having to re-structure their organizations.

GVEA board asks for G&T bylaws to be re-written

2006-08-30T21:11:00.000-08:00

It was just 20 days ago that I posted a blog regarding the Interior Alaska electrical utility GVEA working to transfer its generation and transmission assets ($200 million +) to a separate cooperative composed of one member. I had concerns about this transfer effectively cutting out the existing membership of any involvement or control of this new cooperative GVEA G&T.

Since that time, at my request, I met with GVEA representatives to discuss my concerns and also at the regular GVEA board meeting two nights ago. I discovered then that the reps had brought my issues up with management (thanks!). I was told that Board and GVEA contract attorneys also discussed these matters. At this board meeting, there was an extensive executive session to which I was not privy, but when they came out, a couple of motions were made to instruct management to change the bylaws to read (I've not seen the exact wording yet): 1) GVEA board members will be the board of the G&T; and 2) GVEA members will have equal rights with regards to the G&T to what they currently have with their current cooperative. I think the board was distinctly discomfited with being potentially cut out of management of this new cooperative, thus item 1) above. Not trying for 2) would make for a difficult campaign to pass the membership vote over transferring those assets.

I have to admit to some amazement over the looseness of the existing G&T bylaws. They were created a number of years ago, but no one seemed to read them with any critical eye. I hope that this renewed attention to them will lead to better written ones. GVEA tends to be insular about their activities, but generally has seemed pretty detailed about procedural items. The current G&T bylaws don’t appear to have had much review. If this lack of attention to detail is indicate of the entire proposal, I am seriously concerned.

Once these bylaws are changed, we can return to the issue of whether or not transferring the members’ assets to this new corporation will be in the members’ best interests. Questions remain.

GVEA states it will allow a reduction in margin requirements of about $30 million which somehow will be returned to the members and that operation of this new corporation won’t cost any more than operating as a single cooperative.

1. I would like to see an honest cost analysis of operating this new corporation, from extra legal fees, changing letterhead, accounting, time-keeping, advertising, borrowing.
2. I wonder if this will give these two cooperatives a chance to borrow more money for projects that may or may not be in our long term best interest. We are already in the middle of an expensive series of projects: Intertie, BESS, 2 N. Pole power plants, a new BESS being discussed, substantive extra power requirements from such as Pogo and Delta-Greeley military operations, continued discussion over the Healy Experimental Coal Plant.
3. What kind of return will members actually realize in rate reduction?

Deadlines for submitting comments to the RCA are mid September.

I think that GVEA owes it to the membership to give more details to the membership about the deliberations leading up to this proposal. We see very little in past board minutes, which tend to be too general to be of much use. The only thing we saw was a one-sided proposal in the Ruralite which turned out to not be quite factual, as the board discovered after hearing my concerns.

It was rather odd experience to have my comments on the bylaws addressed in less than a month, though I don’t feel I earned any personal feelings of “winning” from their action. Rather the success is for doing the work of management and the board in reading through the details of what they were blithely establishing in their role of working for the membership of GVEA. I didn’t hear or really expect them to come out and say thanks, but will be happy if they realize that keeping the membership substantively in the loop can actually pay off with valuable input from informed members.

References:

List of filings and orders: http://rca.alaska.gov/data/displayDoc?docID=0703200612334127

Request for confidentiality: http://rca.alaska.gov/data/docketDetail.html?docket=U-06-069

Ruling on first set of issues: http://www.state.ak.us/rca/orders/utils/2006/u06069_2.pdf

Campaign sign karma

2006-08-26T16:58:00.000-08:00

I've been regularly annoyed over the years with the numerous campaign signs that are posted along state maintained highways in violation of state law, which requires a 300' distance. Part of the reason is the arrogance of campaigns that get away with violating the law that was established by those who were elected to office in the first place.

The Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities notifies all candidates of the rules at the start of the campaign season and they will notify candidates of violations when they receive a complaint, giving the candidate 30 days to remove the sign. However, they don't appear to ever follow up.

This latest primary season was more egregious than others, with mostly large 4' x 8' campaign signs posted all over, some even hanging from cranes above major highways.

It was thus with some satisfaction that those two gubernatorial candidates with the most illegal campaign signs in Interior Alaska lost their bid for the Republican nomination. I wonder if karma had anything to do with?

Golden Valley Electric Association asset transfer shorts members

2006-08-10T22:59:00.000-08:00

Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), the Interior Alaska monopoly electric company is a cooperative under Rural Electrification (REA) standard. Yet there are times when the internal organization acts without fair consideration of the membership.

GVEA, in filing U06-060 and U06-069 before the Regulatory Commission of Alaska is proposing to transfer all generation and transmission assets to a new corporation called GVEA Generation and Transmission (G&T). The stated intent is to reduce margin requirements as the market looks at capital assets as tangible. GVEA estimates a long term savings of $31 million.

I have serious concerns over the composition of the G&T in that it cuts the GVEA members out of participation in the tangible assets of the cooperative. The only member of the G&T is the GVEA corporation, the board members are self selected. GVEA has stated that the GVEA board members will serve as G&T board members, but the bylaws do not require this. This arrangement is very loose and is both nepotistic within the corporation and does not allow for any redress by the membership of GVEA for any reason.

As constituted, GVEA cooperative members will be totally excluded from participation in either election of G&T board members and will be not be considered as members, thus not allowed to attend monthly or annual meetings of the G&T.

GVEA is very liberal with its treatment of executive session and confidentiality. I have sat outside GVEA meetings when the board forgot to get out of executive session. The minutes will not reflect anything in executive session.

GVEA cooperative members have pointedly and purposefully been excluded from being in either monthly or annual meetings of Alasconnect, a totally GVEA cooperative owned subsidiary, though other “consultants” have been allowed in. The rationale was that it was a competitive business entity and it was necessary to maintain strict rules regarding confidentiality of its operations. GVEA members, when asking, are given only vague and general information about assets and endeavors of Alasconnect.

GVEA has, in its filing with the RCA, requested confidentiality for some of the filings in its request for approval of the G&T. The RCA granted it only for detail, but not for summary. However, if GVEA transfers its tangible assets to the GVEA G&T, cooperative members will give up all rights to know anything about its assets in any kind of meaningful way.

GVEA’s assertion of a savings of $31 million is an estimate and should be validated by independent entities who have no stake in this transfer.

GVEA’s assertion that no additional staff will be required is curious, since productivity must go down for staff would would necessarily have to document more complex time allocation amongst the various subsidiary organizations. If this is NOT done, the defacto allocation between the two entities will be wrong and perhaps harmful to either of the entities. Bookkeeping and legal fees of an additional entity will cost more.

GVEA should provide more background on the development of this particular plan. Items of interest: other cooperative’s experience in doing this, including details of incorporation, organizational and legal cost of proceeding forwarding with this divesture of GVEA tangible assets to the G&T, a critical analysis of concerns in developing this plan. GVEA always provides a one sided positive view of any action which it submits to the membership. This does not allow for adequately and responsibly educating the members on an issue facing the cooperative. It is always external individuals or organizations that present any contrasting view.

To summarize, the G&T proposal gives up most of the cooperative’s tangible assets to an entity outside of member control. The proposal does not fairly state costs of establishment or state any risks to the membership. It leaves the members' cooperative as a mere shell dedicated to not much more than consumer billing.

References:

List of filings and orders: http://rca.alaska.gov/data/docketDetail.html?docket=U-06-069

Submission of GVEA http://rca.alaska.gov/data/displayDoc?docID=0703200612334127

Request for confidentiality: http://rca.alaska.gov/data/docketDetail.html?docket=U-06-069

Ruling on first set of issues: http://www.state.ak.us/rca/orders/utils/2006/u06069_2.pdf

How to get the U.S. out of Iraq

2006-07-28T22:52:00.000-08:00

Discussing the challenges of our future involvement in Iraq, it seems apparent that we can't really improve on an impossible situation, yet at the same time, shouldn't totally abandon this fractured country in the tortured position we helped create. The United States, through our current administration, has managed to convert the sympathy of the world after 9-11 into considerable disrespect with our arrogance and incompetence in Iraq. So here's how we might get out and take care of an outstanding obligation as well.

We have owed the United Nations a substantial sum of money for many years. The amount ranges from $500 million to $2.o billion. Congress had said they would make a substantial downpayment a few years ago, but attached untenable stipulations. What we should do is make the full payment, plus interest immediately. We should send them a card apologizing for our arrogance and incompetence in nation building and in not working with them more - showing some sincere humility and let them know that we really do need them to take over with peacekeeping in Iraq.

AAA Fuel for Thought

2006-07-05T20:30:00.000-08:00

I can't believe it. My regional AAA president is asking for member suggestions on how to deal with high gas prices. For years, I have tried to engage with AAA political directors and memberhip magazine columnists to get them to support increasing the CAFE standards on behalf of the membership, but to no avail with their dogged hostility to the idea.

In this month's Via magazine (July-August 2006), Wes Choc, president of Mountain West AAA asks how AAA should focus their resources and clout on the long term supply-and-demand issues that affect the price of gasoline. Here's my response:

Dear President Choc,

Thank you for the invitation to members for advice on how AAA should address transportation needs in light of high gas prices. I have tried to engage AAA political directors and magazine columnists in the past and found them most unresponsive, in fact hostile, to progressive ideas. I am encouraged by your willingness to hear from members.

In that spirit, I will suggest that you open your receptivity to considering a broader question than just that of the long term supply and demand issues affecting the price of gasoline. Few wants gas or fuel oil just for the intrinsic value. Mostly it is a means toward doing some work, being it transportation, making something, heating one's living space. The issue is much broader - how can we responsibly and most efficiently obtain the benefits of energy to meet our needs and desires?

If AAA had taken the tack a couple of decades ago to keep CAFE standards increasing for new vehicles, effective demand for motor fuel could have been down and transportation costs reduced. AAA's tenacious refusal to get behind increased CAFE standards has encouraged our profligate use of non-renewable fuels that the oil lobby and auto manufacturers short-sightedly insisted upon since the end of the Arab Oil Embargo. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5458404

If we consider the possible implications of climate change, it can be demonstrated that continuing failure to act has done nothing but hurt our long and now medium term well-being. Every day, there are new reports of the impacts from climate change. Today's news reinforces several years of warning about the increased acidity of the oceans, which until now, had been stable for tens of thousands of years. Increased acidity upsets the balance of life in the ocean, threatens coral reefs and all forms of crustaceans. Say good-bye to that lobster dinner. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/265052_acid31.html

Increased drilling for more non-renewables doesn't address the need for efficient consumption. Shifting to coal just exacerbates the CO2 problem and oil shale technologies require substantive amounts of water, already being depleted in many states. Natural gas would be a fine bridging fuel, but the long and short is we need to be efficient in whatever fuel we use and the Japanese auto industry continues to demonstrate that the U.S. auto industry could and should have done much better.

Ethanol might be part of the mix, but we don't have enough water to make it our sole source. And let's not talk nuclear until we figure out how to render inert the radioactive material that remains when we are done using the fuel. Trusting that we can bury something for 10,000 years safely requires a substantial amount of hubris.

Use of solar and wind renewables pretty much expect electric powered cars, not as feasible for mass marketing with the limited range, given the current crop of batteries. Those marketed 10 years ago in response to California's Zero Emissions haven't been supported. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5524892 More efficient batteries would thus be a logical area of encouragement. Fuel cells have some promise.

First, if AAA does nothing else, getting behind an ambitious effort to increase CAFE, particularly with SUVs now exempt from current auto requirements, is the logical first step.

Secondly, to suggest what might appear to add insult to already high gas prices, I would opine that gas taxes could be increased, with the increase going to fund industry efforts to improve efficiency of transportation technology and to continue to fund taxpayers who choose the most efficient cars. I suggested this when gas prices were low and continue to do so. I'd also suggest a windfall profits tax be levied on those who profit most from high oil prices, i.e. the oil companies. The income from that tax should be used to help those most hurt by high oil prices (heating fuel in particular) and to help those communities who will increase their investment in alternate (bicycles, etc.) and mass transportation.

Finally, having AAA join with many cities and states in this country that are now joining many of the world's nations in support of the Kyoto Protocol would be an important step. The Bush Administration and Congress, representing a nation that consumes much more resources per capita than any other nation, insult the world in not agreeing to the relatively minor commitment to protect our planet's habitat. The irony of this is that we have so much more to lose from not doing so.

People tend to not pay much attention until something hits them smack in the face. Yet if given alternatives to balance out lifestyle choices with intelligent ones on behalf of society and one's longer term interest, a little incentive can go a long way toward improving receptivity to change.

When I was in my early 20's, I was told by those much older than I that "You youngsters have got a big job. We've done messed it all up." Ours was the generation that had so much hope of righting many of the wrongs, but I regret to say now to my kids the very same thing. I'd like to think that mankind can act as we did to reduce our use of chlorofluorcarbons to save the ozone in the upper atmosphere, yet substantively reducing our CO2 in a short time frame will require a broader and more intense effort on our part. And failing to do so will only increase the negative impacts. Katrina? We've seen nothing yet.

It's all in front of us, if we choose to see it. AAA can play a part. I encourage substantive action from an organization of which I have been a member for nearly 40 years. Let's do more than just publish ideas - join with the other regional AAA presidents and advocate for national action to intelligently reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and thus preserve our society.

An Incontinent Truth

2006-07-02T13:45:00.000-08:00

I said before we ought to take Gore seriously regarding his non-presidential ambitions, though others feel he should run. My view is that he may be able to do more good outside of office, able to shape and deliver his own message rather than be diluted by the myriad things that the president has to deal with. Others feel differently and I can understand. But it is a matter of success over wielding power for me. I did see his movie in the theatre with about 25 others, even if it broke no records for attendance. The content was much what I expected, the delivery pretty good, and marveled most that such a movie could be in the theatre.

James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University's Earth Institute (whew), wrote an article "The Threat to the Planet", including a short review of Gore's movie, in the New York Review of Books. I've followed Hansen's work for decades. He's got real street creed in my view, so much so that when the Bush Administration tried to muzzle him speaking his mind, THEY got slapped, not him. He says some pretty intelligent things from my perspective. I guess we must keep repeating ourselves until enough people really get it.

Now the "incontinent truth" subject of this blog relates to a joke my wife made when entering the theatre and when I went to buy tickets, all I could mutter to the disembodied voice behind the glass was "incontinent". And in fairness, if a blog isn't just verbal incontinence, then we are taking ourselves far too seriously.

Retire the Penny

2006-07-02T13:39:00.000-08:00

There has been more interest in retiring the U.S. penny, with copper prices costing the mint 1.2 cents to make it. There is a website Citizens for Retiring the Penny, which links to Jim Kolbe's bill that seeks to phase out the penny. I think we could find a way to honor Abe Lincoln's face on a coin and the sentimentality of penny candy that seems to be important to folks I respect, but am personally ready to move on. I've been in favor of retiring the penny for years, but am now considering hoarding them and all my scrap copper wire for recycling at a profit.

Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline - a new radical proposal

2006-06-22T13:05:00.000-08:00

I'd like us to look at the long term picture and make a radical proposal or two. This is a bit longer than most of my blogs, but worthy of the extra time (so says I).

Alaska has proven to be a gross resource repository during its recorded history. The Russians exploited the sea otters and the Aleuts to near extinction before selling it to the

United States

in 1867. When gold was discovered, those resources were extracted with haste and the resulting boom and bust left a mess behind, as did so many gold rushes. Timber was treated as a free resource to supply the transportation, commerce and residential sectors. Other minerals, including coal, and exploitation of fishing resources followed. Over time, government has stepped in with some environmental mitigation and regulations, but they are always under attack by industry.

With the discovery of oil in 1968 in Prudhoe Bay came another boom, delayed by the need to settle native and State of Alaska land claims and also allowed the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act without which the Trans Alaska Pipeline would have been a much more in the line of past boom time projects that paid little heed to consequences. Even Alyeska consultant Jack Roderick warned against a serious misjudgment over lack of engineering respect for the challenges of building a safe pipeline across permafrost. There was also formal hold on permitting due to the 1966 declaration of Interior Secretary Stewart Udall to first deal with the native land claims. Congress passed the pipeline authorization act and President Nixon signed it in 1973.

During this time, the legislature was brought into special sessions to decide on permitting and taxation, learning a lot about the oil industry, much as the just completed special session around oil and gas. It is important for Alaska negotiators to understand the industry and for their advisors to know at least as much if not more than the oil and gas industry with whom they negotiate.

Without the oil discovery and promise of great riches all around, it may have been that those claims would still be outstanding. Instead, the parties agreed to establish a corporate structure system for native entities. This proved to have about a 50% success rate, as half of the 12 established native corporations and many of the tribal corporations went bust in fairly short order, due to their inexperience with this form of management. In fact, the Alaska Congressional delegation created a tax break system, whereby profitable corporate entities could purchase native corporation losses, thus depriving the U.S. Treasury of tax revenues, while those that wasted or pilfered the native corporations’ resources got off pretty much without consequence. It might be valid to consider that the oil companies didn’t care about the total cost of the pipeline (witness the buried D-8 cats and other examples of wanton waste on the project) as they were entitled to recover all of it as part of the transportation cost. This is a good example of why any natural gas taxation scheme must be based upon gross and not net.

The State of Alaska, in accordance with the U.S. Reclamation Act of 1902, was entitled to receive 90% of the federal receipts of oil royalties. Under § 35 of the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), certain western states receive directly 50% of revenues. An additional 40% goes to those states indirectly through the construction and maintenance of irrigation projects under the Reclamation Act of 1902. These percentages previously were 37 ½% and 52 ½% respectively. Because the territory of Alaska did not benefit from the Reclamation Act, it initially received only a 37 ½% share of federal leasing revenues. Before enactment of the Alaska Statehood Act, Congress amended the MLA to provide that the territory of Alaska would receive an additional 52 ½% share, thereby putting Alaska on the same footing as the other states, receiving a total of 90% of revenues from leasing under the MLA. Section 28(b) of the Alaska Statehood Act again amended the MLA to change the references from the territory of Alaska to State of Alaska. It was later found in court to be amendable by Congress, so Alaska only commonly asserts the same 50% share that other western states get. However, in some form or fashion, we managed instead to settle for 12.5%. Maybe someone could explain that one?

All that being said, when royalties and severance taxes began flowing, it was like bears eating salmon at McNeil River. The Permanent Fund was proposed, developed by Jim Rhode, to put away a portion of the vast revenues coming in, with longevity based dividends to Alaskans, differentially meant to benefit those who lived through the tough times as well as to build a constituency for preserving the corpus of the Permanent Fund. A quick court suit (3 years) using the Interstate Commerce Clause decided that all Alaskans were entitled to the same amount of dividends. Time marches on and most Alaskan think the purpose of the Permanent Fund was to give dividends to Alaskans.

So here we are, nearly 30 years after the oil started flowing. Oil has been pumped out as fast as possible from every corner of the world to maximize short term profits regardless of worldwide prices and we are now on the downswing of production and reserves. Generous tax benefits were given to the oil companies to recover heavier and deeper oil deposits and the oil companies have taken such advantage of these benefits so that, even during record oil prices, they pay little or no tax to the Alaska treasury on profitable fields. At the same time, the oil companies and consuming industries have fought tooth and nail quite successfully against any attempt to mandate more efficient use of this non-renewable resource.

The Arab Oil Embargo in 1974 caused our nation and the world to embark on exploration for renewable energy and conservation techniques to minimize our consumption of fossil fuels. Once demand fell and the embargo ended, so did our efforts. This was followed by a period when overproduction in the Middle East drove the price of oil down from $36 a barrel at the peak of Alaska's oil boom in 1980–81 to $13.50 a barrel in 1988, causing another bust in Alaska. Cheap oil again killed any incentives toward conservation, even as high consumption sport utility vehicles, treated liberally as “trucks” from the standpoint of fuel efficiency, became 50% of the auto transportation market in America.

Some sensitivity to the damage that careless production of fossil fuels might cause was demonstrated by the Exxon Valdez oil tanker running aground in Prince William Sound and spilling 11 million gallons of crude along hundreds of miles of coastline. It cost Exxon several billion dollars to clean up as best they could. Keep that figure in mind when you consider my radical proposal later in this paper.

As we now are at what most would call “peak oil” production, more effort is being expended to seek alternatives to oil. Consumption has risen, developing nations, especially China and India, are expected to demand more. At the present, the most efficient and least environmentally non-renewable resource is natural gas, still quite abundant throughout the world. It could be said that natural gas resources are about parallel with what oil resources were 100 years ago.

Natural gas is more environmentally friendly due to less CO² emissions, which as we now mostly believe, are causes for concern in the upper atmosphere and resultant disruption of our fairly balanced delicate world climate. This being said, we would be well within reason to suggest we stop consumption of any fossil fuel in favor of environmentally well sited renewable energy and only use natural gas as a bridging fuel while we re-structure the world’s energy economy to renewable energy.

An aside here as some would suggest we need more nuclear power to get us off non-renewable energy. One of the problems with a consumptive society is that we use some item, but that it comes with packing and inherent waste that must be taken care of when we finish consuming whatever that item is. Nuclear energy falls into the latter category in spades with deadly waste that lasts many thousands of years. Some arrogantly think they can bury it some place where it won’t bother anyone, but to guess 100 years down the road is considered pretty far thinking (believe me, I’ve been ragged for thinking too far term). So to assert that we know 10,000 years is lunacy. If we are to use nuclear energy, we need fusion, which will leave no harmful waste. That appears to be not feasible, at least unless we capture the fusion energy from our sun. Solar energy is suggested here.

The design of capitalism, now the dominant economic system worldwide, is to benefit the shareholder and corporation. Government is considered a hindrance to the free market and urged to get out of the way with reduced regulations. Externalities, environmental and otherwise, are not part of the equation. At the same time, the political system in many places is overwhelmed with special interests and the corporate lobbyists have the most access, as they have the funding from commerce. To represent mankind’s long term interest instead of short term “economic development” is considered incredibly naïve and one would be considered a flaming socialist or rabid environmentalist at best. It is hard to get elected without money and the political system is heavily stacked against anyone that would not align with monied interests. The Soros’ and Laurence Rockefellers are few and far between. Some now believe, much like local communities and states going around the Bush Administration’s refusal to implement Kyoto Treaty standards for the country by just doing it at their governmental levels. I might just agree.

So at the current juncture in Alaska, the main political debate is how to get a gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay in order for the State of Alaska to guarantee the money train from our pitiful portion of the resources the oil companies extract on the North Slope.

The oil company perspective is that it would be most economical to go across the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with a pipeline into Canada and tie in the with the proposed gas pipeline from the Mackenzie Valley. Congress with the support of the State of Alaska saw otherwise, believing wisely for once that such a pipeline might bring royalties, but no benefits of natural gas energy to Alaska markets. Jobs for construction and maintenance would not benefit Alaskans near as much as if it were built in Alaska.

If that is settled, then the issue becomes whether a pipeline should be built along the Alaska Highway through Canada to Midwest U.S. markets or down the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) corridor to Valdez, liquefied and shipped to LNG terminals. Besides the long lead time before completion that either project would require, there are other factors that create uncertainty.

There have been quite a number of economists and other experts testifying one way or the other to the Alaska Legislature. Gov. Murkowski asserts that his draft contract with the major oil companies for the Alaska Highway route is the only way the majors will build it but only if Alaska offers so many incentives to the oil companies that Alaska loses quite a lot, including the chance that the pipeline would even be built.

The Alaska Highway route has numerous impediments to construction. It is a very long and costly route. Canada and its provinces and territories are far from being able to fully permit the pipeline. First Nations still are awaiting a legal settlement from the National Government. If and when such a pipeline did get constructed, delivery of such huge quantities of natural gas would probably cause the price to drop substantially, further impacting the economic viability of the project. The project also assumes 1/3 more natural gas reserves that currently estimated. I’ve seen no indication where those extra reserves will come from.

The alternative “All Alaska” route to Valdez is substantially less expensive to build, but has the added challenge of transportation from Valdez and where to land LNG. Currently, U.S. destinations for LNG are only in the Gulf of Mexico, while the demand is on all coasts. Internationally, due to plentiful supply in the ground, many resource rich nations are competing for sales.

In either case, the population base and workforce of Alaska is unable to supply but a small portion of the needed labor to complete a pipeline project of this magnitude. Once again, we would experience the pain of boom and bust, local communities would suffer with quality of life and economically, as they work to provide short term but expensive infrastructure.

I have proposed a radical concept of building a smaller but sustainable All-Alaska pipeline, with a dog-leg to the Anchorage area, and perhaps further, as economics may allow. Several billion dollars, roughly equivalent to what Exxon spent to clean up their mess from the Exxon Valdez spill, ought to be a good start.

Construction costs in an existing right of way (TAPS) would be less than a virgin route, thus cheaper. Permitting would be easier
A smaller pipeline would require less high demand resources such as steel and labor.
A smaller pipeline would cost less overall.
It would also give Alaskans an opportunity to build up a technical labor force to accomplish larger projects.
Due to the smaller scope of the project, it could be completed more quickly, reducing market uncertainty.
The boom-bust impact to communities would be substantially less.
Alaskans would benefit from the bridging fuel of natural gas.
Anchorage will have a steady supply of natural gas as their Cook Inlet fields diminish.

Three concerns are mentioned to me when I have made this proposal:

The major oil companies may not agree to transport their gas through someone else’s pipeline. I think that, considering all the impediments to the other proposed pipelines, this is an issue that can be addressed, if not through the Stranded Gas Act, by other means, legal or economic. The oil companies have benefited enormously from the profits in transporting oil through TAPS and in their own tankers from Valdez to worldwide markets. But if they can’t afford to take the admitted large risk with a multi-billion dollar project along the Alaska Highway, admit that and work with alternatives.
Who will finance such a project? I don’t have the answer entirely, but I would assume that the Port Authority, who was charged by Alaskans to develop a pipeline, would be a likely candidate.
Where will the exported natural gas be sold? This again is something that will take effort of those who know more about natural gas markets than I. However, logic dictates that, with oil supply peaking and oil demand increasing, the market for natural gas will increase as users seek alternatives to oil.

A second radical concept following construction of this small scale natural gas pipeline system is that Alaska would use a substantive percentage of the proceeds from transporting the gas to fund sustainable alternative energy, especially for those communities that would not directly benefit from access to natural gas. Instead of using natural gas income to pay short term Permanent Fund dividends, we would use it to invest in getting Alaska as much off the carbon consumption track as possible. Instead of an All Alaska Gas Line, it would be the All Alaskans Gas Line. This would allow us to reduce if not eliminate our burning of coal, by far the worst carbon dioxide emitter of all the fossil fuels. Alaska has huge reserves of coal, but to be quite honest, it’s not in anyone’s long term interest to use as fuel. No current technology can scrub CO2. Clean Coal remains an oxymoron. Local citizens could also convert heating plants to natural gas at a relatively small expense.

Developing robust renewable sources of energy for Alaska can alleviate the resource markets’ instability. That being said, non-renewable energy can only increase in cost, unless the world also discovers that they need to get off fossil fuels. And again, Alaska would benefit with such a renewables strategy.

Economic analyses of the various gas pipeline proposals don’t truly incorporate environmental and other externalities. If this project is looking forward 10-20 years into the future, the continued impacts from climate change can radically upset future economic assumptions. For example, imagine the economic impact on a pipeline project if a carbon tax were imposed nationally or internationally.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but believe the logic is solid for these two proposals:

1. Human society needs to get off of fossil fuel consumption. They are destroying the habitat upon which we rely for survival. Not to do so will just hasten our own destruction and as a developing species. It will also cost us more to NOT act, as we try to cope with climate change impacts.

2. We can learn from history (maybe) by using the most environmentally friendly non-renewable energy as a bridge to a sustainable renewable energy society.

3. While Alaska can’t change the world, we are blessed with the opportunity and resources to change our state into a model to inspire others, while benefiting our own society. We contributed the concept of the Permanent Fund and other nations and governments now seek to emulate it. Small as we Alaskans are as a society, we can make a difference.

Serves them right

2006-06-22T12:59:00.000-08:00

Considering the implementation of the NSA listening in ONLY to phone conversations from the U.S. to foreign destinations, I can imagine what pain and suffering they must experience having to listen to all the Dell computer support calls routed to India. If anyone would like to contribute their experience in a comment, it might make for good street theatre. In any case, it serves the NSA right and I hope they have a good mental health care plan for their "listeners".

How Iraqi women could stop the civil war

2006-06-04T13:17:00.000-08:00

The sectarian violence continues unabated in Iraq and, at present, the new government still can't agree on the key posts of Interior and Defense ministries.

Perhaps the only saving from civil war would be for the women to take action to get everyone to lay down their arms and get back to being productive. How radical it might seem if women just decided they were going to go out in public with no clothes on until the fighting stopped? The Lysistrata idea of withholding sex wouldn't work as that is private, but to make a mass public demonstration of such commitment may likely be the only thing that could stop the sectarian violence. It's obvious that the competing immans have the power, even if they had the will. There would be some initial negative repercussions on those who started it, but a groundswell could make such demonstrations impossible to stop.

I don't pretend to understand Moslem culture and its apparent lack of respect for human life over proported religious pronouncements. There is obviously lots of history here. Do Moslem women even want to stop the violence more than the men? I don't know.

I do believe that the "Coalition" forces are becoming more and more irrelevant. From hearing stories from folks outside the Green Zone such as from freelance journalist Nir Rosen on Fareed Zakaria's Foreign Exchange, most of the fighting is between the Sunnis and Shiites, with the Kurds just continuing to try doing their own thing up in the north. The Americans and British are just on the sidelines, getting shot by anyone whenever they go outside the safe zone.

What arrogance our country has shown in overthrowing a government, bad as it might have been, and leaving it in a state of civil war and calling it democracy? We have a pretty active history of overthrowing governments with less than stellar results, but that may be a subject for another time.

So what about having the Iraqi women save their country?

Saddam Hussein's sentence

2006-06-04T13:07:00.000-08:00

I wasn't the first or the last to suggest that, instead of a death sentence for Saddam Hussein, surely guilty of more than he is accused of, he should be sentenced to work for the Iraqi government, now that the U.S. has destabilized an already sad situation.

Cowboys and Injuns

2006-06-04T12:56:00.000-08:00

Those who have talked politics with me at any length know of the theory that political humorist Dick Gregory brought to my attention back in 1971 that the United States has a cowboy mentality. And, as some of us remember from childhood, cowboys can't be cowboys unless we have injuns to kill. Dick went into greater detail in a story of the founding of America (where we "discovered" a place that was already occupied) and I'll provide that source sometime.

This being the basic simple premise, it does explain a lot about how 9-11 helped George Bush get his focus. Being the quintessential cowboy (how he walks walk, talks plainly like "Dead or Alive"), before 9-11, the only "injun" he had was Saddam Hussein, who tried to get George's daddy some years back. 9-11 was of course a way to fabricate an Iraqi association with terrorists. Now he was complete, with injuns to kill.

Listening to a news program today that was discussing the killing of innocent civilians in Haditha, Iraq by Marines back in Nov. 2005, one commentator made mention of what the Marines apparently refer to as "indians", meaning the Iraqi enemy (whoever they are). I couldn't have asked for more specific validation of the "cowboys and injuns" theory.

Take Gore at Face Value

2006-06-04T12:39:00.000-08:00

With the release and promotion of An Inconvenient Truth and Al Gore's new visibility, the news media seem to be enthralled with getting him to say he will be running for president, capitalizing on the media's characterization of front-runner nominee Hillary Clinton's "negatives". Watching the morning political talk shows, such as This Week with George Stephanopolous, the message of the issue of dealing with climate change was totally lost in favor of presidential speculation. Of course, George and Al know each other well from Clinton days.

There is no doubt that Gore would be a formidable candidate, but this little dance that is always done around potential candidates drowns the message of what the individual is saying.

How about we just take him at face value and talk about the issue?

Fairbanks blog favorites

2006-05-28T17:36:00.000-08:00

A couple of my favorite local blogs:

The Ester Republic - a bastion of independence from west of Fairbanks.

http://fieryblazinghandbasket.blogspot.com/

Alaska Gasline

2006-05-28T17:05:00.000-08:00

Alaskans are being given a front row seat at Gov. Murkowski's attempts to have the Legislature endorse an oil tax revision that sets us up to give away governmental taxing authority for 30 years to get Big Oil to "consider" building a gas line from Prudhoe Bay to market. Considering that we absolutely gave away much of our taxes years ago under Big Oil threats during low oil prices, this would just reinforce that we will just roll over for Big Oil.

Bombarded by full color page spreads of BP and Conoco-Phillips, saying what good corporate citizens they are and how they provide so many Alaskan jobs, I think the cost for this expensive ad and lobbying campaign could be used in better ways. Yet our system will reward the one with the loudest voice and biggest pocketbook and I think Big Oil certainly has both.

I honestly don't know wha the Legislature will do. While they have voiced legitimate concerns, I've seen similar concerns loudly voiced, but at the end, capitulate.

A 1970's bumpersticker: "Oh, God, please grant us another pipeline. We promise not to piss it away this time." Well, we are at the starting gate. Personally, while natural gas would be better than burning oil or (shudder - we have so much of it) coal, I'm in no rush to bend over for Big Oil. You know what heavier lube is used for, no?

Foxes in the Henhouse

2006-05-28T16:58:00.000-08:00

I just finished the recent book "Foxes in the Henhouse" by Steve Jarding and Mudcat Saunders, who ran successful Bob Kerrey and Mark Warner campaigns in very conservative states. They have some good suggestions about Democrats being successful in the South - don't write off southern states (as the Dems did in 2004 - you can't win what you give up from the outset), differentiate between "Bubba" and "Redneck", don't let the opposition create the image of what You are about. All basic stuff, but good to have reinforced.

This subject resonated with me partly because Alaska has political and cultural aspects characteristic of a Southern state. I found the book a good common sense read, interspersed with tables of facts to validate their points. It probably follows through with the concept of comity more than some of my other postings. I really do try though.

It's all a big scary conspiracy

2006-05-28T16:34:00.000-08:00

With Al Gore's movie about to come out, we all could predict how folks in the know would say it's just more scare tactics trying to destroy the economy. Rich Lowry of the National Review makes his distorted claims, at the same time admitting global warming is real, and C02 almost certainly contributes to it, but then he also has a book on how we need to be Paying the Price for the Clinton Years. I'm afraid current and future generations will be paying the price for Bush's intentional missteps in Iraq, ballooning the deficit, debilitating the environment, but doubt Lowry or the National Review would own up to that. Lowry's criticism of Clinton is mostly personal and asserted that Clinton spent so much of his time as President on issues that were small, fuzzy, or ridiculous. I suppose Lowry forgot about how Clinton got lambasted for trying to take on too much in solving the health care crisis (still not solved today).

I liked what Paul Krugman asked in a recent column about Gore "Are we ready for political leaders who don't pander, who are willing to talk about complicated issues and call for responsible policies?" I think it is a stretch to say YES, but if demonstrated in real terms where regular folks can see the personal impacts (such as high gas prices), then MAYBE. If NO, then we have only ourselves to blame for 1) not paying attention and 2) trusting our elected representatives to be more than just shills for the special interests that continue to get them elected.

Why they don't get along, or do they?

2006-05-28T16:25:00.000-08:00

A friend who knows recently commented on how different it is for Congressional members these days. They don't interact as much, as most of them now live outside the Beltway. This makes it harder to get things done when a personal relationship can bridge some of the partisanship. But then Bush seems to be helping, as both R's AND D's object with Bush's faux-pas' in respecting the other branches of government.

It is an interesting irony having Dennis Hastert get pissed at Bush for letting the FBI go into Democratic Rep. William Jefferson's office (with a warrant), citing separation of powers. I suspect he is worried about a precedent, with his own concern over corruption. They are trying to patch things up, it's good to know. But having Hastert defend a Democrat shows some bi-partisanship, no, especially when Jefferson surely had his hand in the cookie jar.

Tell me it ain't so

2006-05-03T17:13:00.000-08:00

Apparently, scientists now agree that the earth is warming, attributable to human activity, according to the Bangkok Post.

Of course, even the Bush administration, whose agency came to this conclusion, wants to do more studying.

And in a related piece, a pair of Alaska Legislative Democrats want to suspend collection of the state fuel tax to help folks during the summer. The Alaska tax is 8 cents, lowest in the nation. This would do little to help, considering the market price can jump that much in a week, and could actually hurt when reimposed in the fall (as they suggested). Giving them the benefit of the doubt, this may be well meant, but looks like the Bill Frist pandering, offering to give an income tax break of $100, which is now withdrawn.

Gas Tax

2006-05-02T13:29:00.000-08:00

Instead of reducing the gas tax, as some politicians had suggested, I suggested years ago, when gas was relatively cheap, we ought to increase the gas tax and use the proceeds to stimulate reduced consumption and get some feasible alternatives available. It got no traction back then and surely wouldn't now, but kudos to the few that now suggest it.

Long Term Thinking

2006-04-28T22:36:00.000-08:00

I have thought of myself as thinking long term, but must admit to being a bit late to pick up on the challenge with CO2. Al Gore has me beat. I see he now has a web presence too. I do like his Upton Sinclair quote “It’s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding.” Seems like the price of oil is helping the understanding, but most of it seems to be directed short term, such as $100 tax rebates on gas as long as drilling in the Arctic Refuge is allowed. That sure sounds like a policy winner.

We know the political system offers incentives primarily based on the next election. Statesmen are near extinct. Individuals follow per the Upton Sinclair quote above, so who is left? We may the the most intelligent and capable species on earth but we are far from being able to avoid develop ourselves into environmental oblivion, despite our hubris. And though the Earth will go on, some species including our own may survive, many will not due to our own short term thinking.

This week, I attempted to inject some long term thought into our University of Alaska campus planning group on which I serve, asking them to consider climate change implications when we try to assess or guide development. The response was mostly dead silence with the one comment "We don't do that here". Even folks there that I'm pretty sure know better didn't say a thing.

Another cheery post. Ka-chink, ka-chink, ka-chink of a scratched record (LP).

The Jennies

2006-04-15T12:59:00.000-08:00

It has been said that the kids today don’t tend to engage as did the Baby Boomers on major issues of the day such as civil rights or the Vietnam War of that time. They appear to be very self-centered, part of an entitled generation which I will call “Gen-E” or the "Jennies". Yet the irony of this is that the Boomer generation, from who so much was expected in social and political progress, is the generation that raised the Jennies. How is it that George Bush is a two term president from the same generation that gave us so much hope? No, don’t answer that.

While in some parts of the world, we have risen above savagery, we still haven’t learned the art of long term self-preservation. I sure hope the Jennies will be up for the task, as we’re leaving them a very big job.

The Philosophy of Our Place in Nature

2006-04-15T12:56:00.000-08:00

Atlantic Monthly has a collection of excerpts of writings on Nature and the Environment that I thought might provide a different perspective from the down-in-the-trenches view we normally inhabit.

Do They Get It Yet?

2006-04-15T12:46:00.000-08:00

From the perspective of one who has seen this vision for 20 years, it appears now that there is approaching critical mass to consider the unthinkable – taking concerted local, state, then perhaps national action to combat our “contributions” toward climate change. I’ve suggested to skeptics that we take out fire insurance on our houses on smaller odds that a fire might happen than on the odds that our contributions might be changing the climate. Yet until real recently, any substantive action beyond “more study” has been hard to come by.

The political will has been the most difficult nut to crack. Legislatures and Congress are not very progressive when it comes to long term issues. Social Security or national health care are examples of that which we are unable to address, since it requires political sacrifice beyond the next election. And to their defense, it is a rare statesman (as opposed to politician) who has the support of his or her electorate in suggesting we sacrifice in the short term to benefit or reduce risks in the future.

the concern I have is that we are past if not the tipping point, at the least further along in climate change so that stabilization will be near impossible. We can perhaps preclude it getting worse, but the cost from the impacts will make concerted efforts to mitigate our contributions that much more difficult. We are more willing to spend $10 billion to deal with Hurricane Katrina.

A recent piece of legislation in the Alaska Legislature to establish a commission to investigate and recommend how Alaska might deal with the impacts from climate change has speedily passed the House of Representatives (HCR 30) and is now headed for the Senate. This reminded me of a commission I proposed in 1989 to look at ways the State of Alaska could minimize its contributions toward climate change. It got as far as a resolution to the governor, who had a draft report written that suggested, amongst other things, that we diversify our fuel sources and burn more coal. Not real helpful if one is trying to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, since coal contributes many times more CO2 than even burning oil. So 16 years ago we’re trying to reduce our contributions to climate change and now we are trying to mitigate the consequences of having failed to take meaningful actions.

So we are down to those skeptics now accepting there are negative impacts to climate change and that humans might be responsible for some of it. Whether we are willing to make any short term sacrifices to mitigate those contributions or just think we can rely on new technology, as Sen. Lisa Murkowski currently believes, remains to be seen. While technology might help long term, we've been needing to take short term action for a few decades.

Illegal spying thoughts

2006-02-08T00:42:00.000-09:00

I've been observing the "discussion" about the illegal spying of the Bush administration and their extreme reluctance to give details. I think I've figured it out.

My theory is that they are using a technology that "listens" to A LOT of conversations, but only takes notice when certain technical parameters, such as location of call, words in the conversation, etc., are met. In other words, it is a broad scope with a narrower focus.

Time will tell.

Cartoon power and sizzling sheep

2006-02-08T00:23:00.000-09:00

Someone recently said it's a good day when you are still above ground. Another person or two has said that there is real power in the written word. Interesting to know there is great power in the cartoon drawings. Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling for spending all those hours reading comics as a kid.

It is really a strange dichotomy to consider that apparent large numbers of Muslims are both violently and non-violently protesting various media outlets printing cartoons ostensibly of Mohammed, while I don't recall such protests over the airing of beheadings of hostages. Seems like there is a human perspective missing. I admit I don't understand the attraction to violence in the name of religion, but mankind has shown a great propensity for just that in the past, oh, 5000 years. I just can't wait to join up and be sanctimonious with one of them, if it weren't for by intelligent designation as one of the chosen. So I guess I will just try to be a good person in this life, treat others with respect, and take my chances on what comes next.

This of course means I can't decapitate or otherwise physically torture anyone in the name of religion. Drat, there's just no fun anymore. Except, I am still above ground, for which I am thankfu.

And besides ....

2006-02-08T00:18:00.000-09:00

Besides all the other oddities, such as

1. Republicans rebelling against Dubya's budget proposals for more tax cuts for wealthy, cuts in social services (gotta bleed those programs, due to high deficits),
2. Still no proposed solution to the middle-classification of the Alternative Minimum Tax (c'mon Congress, it's not any harder to fix than it is to fill out as a taxpayer)
3. Republicans actually concerned about the continuing cost of war in Iraq
4. Republican senators VERY concerned over the Bush Administration's illegal spying.

-- actually, not so odd, considering it's an election year

Ramping up of dialog on CAFE standards increase

2006-02-08T00:16:00.000-09:00

It does seem that CAFE standards are getting broader airing, even if Bush won't support an increase. He's still looking for high tech and nucular (sic) to provide the needed "independence" from foreign oil.

Even global warming is getting more attention lately.

Alaskan electric cooperative runs amok with litigation despite amnesia

2006-01-25T23:03:00.000-09:00

As some folks know, I've been dogging our regional electric cooperative for years, mostly trying to get them to open up to our membership about their doings, as well as exercising a lot more common sense about what they do with our resources. A recent example is a dispute over a $300 million + boondoggle of a coal generation plant next to Denali National Park.

GVEA board chairman Rick Schikora and former president-CEO Mike Kelly, now a state legislator, have been running from past responsibility for the experimental power plant in Healy in recent articles in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner. The board chairman, in violation of the understanding of the board to speak with one voice, failed to let the board know about an article written under his name, but which he later told the board wasn't written by him at all, but by GVEA staff.

In the meantime, Rep. Mike Kelly has total amnesia about his extensive previous involvement in the project and is on a witch hunt to extract many pounds of flesh from the state agency that now owns the plant through his standing as a legislator reviewing their budget, an obvious conflict of interest. He also appears to have forgotten he no longer represents his former employer, but the residents of his district.

You can read the latest exchange, originally published in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner.

Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority's (AIDEA) Community Perspective article

Board chair Rick Schikora' Community Perspective article

State Rep. Mike Kelly's Community Perspective article

Gary Newman's reply Community Perspective article

In the meantime, GVEA and AIDEA are in a civil suit over access, AIDEA returned excess revenues back to the state, and Homer Electric is interested in buying power from the experimental power plan. And GVEA is also in dispute with Pogo mine owners (near Delta Jct.) when they entered into a power sales agreement with the Pogo mine with regulatory approval and want to break the agreement because they are behind schedule on building new generation in North Pole (also in litigation with H.C. Price over that project), which would supply the power to the mine.

I wonder what the board of directors do to deserve their $600/month stipend.

Fresh ideas from Republicans

2006-01-17T20:24:00.000-09:00

I gotta hand to the Republicans for their fresh approach to dealing with problems.

Well, anyway, just keep a sense of humour about it all.

Those little consistencies #1

2005-12-13T23:09:00.000-09:00

Okay, one thing Dick Gregory, the black and most political comedian, showed us as far back as the early 70's was those "little inconsistencies" in those who would moralize against other people's behaviour, while ignoring their own. More about Dick as I have time, but to start it out, here's a short Bill Maher video.

Are they getting it?

2005-12-12T21:37:00.000-09:00

I've noticed in the past few months that there is a heightened awareness of issues relating to climate change and to the short term cost of oil. Of course indigenous northern latitude peoples are concerned about losing their way of life. Yet even conservative pundits such as Forbes Magazine seem to be taking our consumptive patterns seriously. The U.S. shows no leadership in continuing to reject Kyoto though the short term cost of compliance would be much less than the long term costs of environmental damage.

I do believe we are entering the tipping point, where we can no longer slow the change enough to save much of what we stand to lose. From odd diseases popping up damaging ecosystems, to complete changing of biomes, we have no idea where all the pitfall are. Okay, so say goodbye to southern Florida via rising ocean levels or hurricanes or both. It seems pretty stupid to continue to rebuild on sand bars ocean in the Gulf and Atlantic states.

Most aware folks seem rather cynical that we will do anything before the destruction is too wide-spread to stop. It does seem our own short term view and greed dooms us to something substantially less than what we have now. Demand for land and resources will lead to wars, and famine, which may lead to reduced population, the other equation in the issue of sustainability.

I saw a comic in Time magazine recently, showing Bush as the Fuel-Miser-in-Chief.

Oh well. It's also one year since I started this blog.

Airline financial troubles

2005-11-23T09:00:00.000-09:00

I ran across a recent post discussing some outfall (pun intended) from Delta Airlines where 133 people were killed when Delta cancelled their flight mid-air. They had also started bumping passengers in flight, but made sure to give them frequent flyer miles and meal chits as they tossed them out. You can read the entire story here

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42594

Poetic justice for Saddam Hussein

2005-11-23T08:56:00.000-09:00

Just a quickie to suggest something I saw recently.

When/if Saddam Hussein is found guilty of a few of the nasty things he did as president of Iraq, now that America has made quite a mess of the country, perhaps Saddam's punishment should be giving Iraq back to him to sort out (with a bit of international oversight)?

Local Politics with a small town mindset

2005-10-08T00:21:00.000-08:00

Living in a town of 80,000 may seem small compared to some places, but we ARE the second largest city in Alaska and provide services for a pretty large, though sparsely populated area beyond. Still, once in a while, things happen that surprise the Republican power brokers and they send out their mouthpiece to cast aspersions on those who would aspire to challenge their control. It was such a stupid editorial, I couldn't help but reply by a letter to the editor, The editorial is quoted below my letter.

October 7, 2005

To the Editor,

I'm much obliged to the News-Miner reflective editorial of Oct. 6, 2005, explaining that we voters must not have known that those we didn't elect were in fact financially supported by political heavies such as Ralph Seekins and Jim Holm, well known for selling us gas guzzling trucks and cutting off funding for public broadcasting, respectively. The News-Miner suggested that voters might have been reacting to the negative partisan antics of the current conservative local governments, but we still didn't understand we might not following the guidance of the well-healed business power brokers. Was the News-Miner warning us that these pillars of our community are going to take revenge on the people who participated in the democratic process? What DOES it mean?

If the "conservative" candidates had all this money and political support for their campaigns and either didn't get their message out or the voters didn't approve their message, the News-Miners said it's the media's fault. I wouldn't blame the News-Miner. I read well done ads and information from all candidates that outlined their priorities and supporters quite adequately, even those the News-Miner sold to the campaigns. The News-Miner suggested that incoming Assemblywoman Torie Foote took unfair advantage by having more contributors than challenger Carl Skaugstad. Strange that she also got more votes that Mr. Skaugstad. And ironic that the law which allowed the News-Miner to view the detailed list of contributors were sponsored by "liberal" state legislators.

Charlie Dexter, a News-Miner business page columnist and UAF professor, talks about good customer relations in numerous columns. The News-Miner is welcome to endorse who it likes in any election, but as the single daily newspaper in Fairbanks, they ought not to insult its customers and the voters who cared enough to cast their ballots in Tuesday's election.

As to what the political tilt might be, I hope it will be a lean toward open, responsive, and responsible government. If that outcome is "left" and the opposite is "right", the News-Miner made the case, not me.

Sincerely,

Gary Newman

Fairbanks Daily News Miner
Article Published: Thursday, October 06, 2005

Editorial: What does it mean?

Around the Fairbanks North Star Borough, people who have an interest in such things will be trying to figure out what voters meant on Tuesday by returning three former assembly members to office. That alone is enough to get people wondering, but the fact that these three are of a decidedly different political persuasion from the conservative lineup that has been in place will be the cause of even greater discussion.

Seats on the Borough Assembly are nonpartisan; candidates in general don't campaign as Republican or Democrat. But people, unlike seats, carry with them partisan leanings and political beliefs that can fairly be defined as conservative or liberal and in varying degrees thereof. And without question, the incoming assembly has more liberal members--a majority, in fact--than the outgoing conservative-dominated assembly has.

What did voters mean by doing this? There are several possibilities, but it will probably never be known whether it was a single reason or a combination that led to the sharp shift leftward with the return of Tim Beck, Torie Foote and Valerie Therrien. Assemblyman Randy Frank, a conservative member of the assembly, won re-election to the other seat on the ballot.

In sending the three former assembly members back to office, were voters saying they were unhappy at the prospect of losing veterans Bonnie Williams and Garry Hutchison, who were not allowed to run again because of the borough's prohibition on serving more than two consecutive terms? Did they not want to replace them with newcomers that they knew little about? Or did they simply want change, without risk, after having had several years of openly conservative and sometimes loudly partisan rule on the assembly?

Or is there no uniform reason for the election of these three former assembly members. Was Assemblyman Earl Romans defeated solely because he sponsored the controversial code enforcement ordinance. If that's the case and Mr. Romans would have otherwise won re-election, then the four seats on the ballot would have been split equally between conservative and liberal candidates and the post-election ruminating would be less than it is.
Or was this the result, in whole or in part, of a weakness in the local media, which did not provide a widespread listing--if it provided a listing at all--of the people who were financially supporting each candidate? Giving such a listing does help voters form an impression of a candidate, especially first-time candidates, and without it some voters may have chose to vote for the familiar name instead.

Take the race for Assembly Seat H between Mrs. Foote and Cal Skaugstad, who has not had much public exposure. Mrs. Foote won with 57 percent of the vote, a substantial total. But would the race have been closer or perhaps gone the other way had the public known that Mr. Skaugstad had the financial backing of people such as state Sens. Ralph Seekins and Gary Wilken and Reps. John Coghill, Jim Holm and Jay Ramras? Of business leaders such as managers of Usibelli Coal Mines and Aurora Energy? Of many other conservatives in town who gave to his campaign?

Maybe the outcome of the Foote-Skaugstad race wouldn't have changed, but a wide array of voters should have been told--in news reports--of Mr. Skaugstad's backers and of Mrs. Foote's backers, who include retired Fairbanks legislators John Davies and Joe Hayes, Rep. David Guttenberg, the Alaska Conservation Voters Political Action Committee, the Alaska Public Employees Association PAC and four other labor union committees. Her list of contributors is even longer than Mr. Skaugstad's and includes many other fairly well-known local liberals.

So what to make of all this. Again, we'll never know for sure, but it may not be a public demand for a leftward tilt in governance of the Fairbanks North Star Borough. And the new assembly should consider that as it begins its work.

Do they really get it?

2005-09-13T22:28:00.000-08:00

I read that Sen. Pete Domenici, (R) of New Mexico may finally realize that improving automobile fuel efficiency standards might be a good idea, what with the run up in gas costs resulting from Hurricane Katrina. 35 years late, but hey! Of course he suggests it might be possible if we do it coupled with increased exploration, like in ANWR. Get it? Nah, not yet.

www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Business/031605.html

Actually, I suggested this approach to Sen. Ted Stevens (R) Alaska a year and a half ago, but he panned the idea.

I've also read some states are considering dropping their gas tax to help consumers in this time of need. I must admit that gas costs and more importantly heating oil costs can be a bit high and damaging to the economy, but not as bad as the destruction that would come from improved fuel efficiency standards (see Lisa Murkowski quote on an earlier post). In Alaska, it would only be a paltry amount, since we have one of the lowest state gas taxes in the nation and once abolished, we would have a devil of a time to reinstitute it, as we have with the income tax.

I'm so proud

2005-09-05T17:14:00.000-08:00

I'm so proud. A company I've been doing business with for PA equipment has provided a Presidential Seal guitar to George W. Now I have to admit to some discomfit, realizing that Carvin thinks they are enhancing their caché by promoting this special occasion. Giving a guitar to one who has caused the loss of tens of thousands of lives in Iraq - Iraqi, American, European, etc. and who doesn't even play the guitar, as evidenced by how he is holding it, a G chord on the wrong fret and the panicky look on the fellow behind him who probably thinks he's going to drop the guitar. I have to think that, with George W.'s goofy grin, his chord formation is more likely a result of him giving us all the finger. I would expect no less. On his way back, he had Air Force 1 fly over Lousiana and Mississippi coasts to view the Katrina damage. Johnny on the spot he is.

Katrina by example

2005-08-30T20:00:00.000-08:00

We view the aftermath of the devastation from Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana and Mississippi, and I listen to predictions of the cost and challenges of cleaning up and rebuilding. I also hear about the increased price of petroleum with the damage to the supply and production channels of 1.5 million barrels daily from this area.

Is it possible to consider that humankind has exacerbated at least one "natural" event such as this through profligate carbon dioxide emissions? If it is possible, then perhaps those political and corporate individuals and entities who have allowed up to ignore these possibilities for 25 years might realize that the cost of doing next to nothing with reducing our fossil fuel consumption is going to be much greater to our society than if we had acted years ago.

I think that nature will eventually motivate some to act, but it is really disheartening to have our political institutions so consciously and seriously damage our own future by inaction. I see more and more evidence that the future is upon us.

This may sound a bit like crying Armageddon, but seriously, folks, do you think that our political leaders will ever "get it" and rise above the short term corporate greed that fuels their inactions? It's hard to believe they can be so blinded for so long in the face of the obvious.

Feeling just a bit despairingly today.

Another Porky Energy Bill

2005-07-26T21:26:00.000-08:00

Same ole, same ole. An energy policy that does nothing to reduce demand. No CAFE standards increase, which would, as everyone knows, destroy our economy (heavy sarcasm). Heads stuck in the sand, despite many seemingly to recognize we might have a problem with climate change. Of course, that will just require more meetings, according to U.S. Senator from Alaska Lisa Murkowski. (see previous blog)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072600793.html

Energy Bill Wouldn't Wean U.S. Off Oil Imports, Analysts Say

By Justin Blum, Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, July 26, 2005; 11:48 AM

Despite repeated calls by President Bush and members of Congress to decrease U.S. dependence on oil imports, a major energy bill that appears headed for passage this week would not significantly reduce the country's need for foreign oil, according to analysts and interest groups.

The United States imports 58 percent of the oil it consumes. Federal officials project that by 2025, the country will have to import 68 percent of its oil to meet demand. At best, analysts say, the energy legislation would slightly slow that rate of growth of dependence.

"We'll be dependent on the global market for more than half our oil for as long as we're using oil, and the energy bill isn't going to change that," said Ben Lieberman, who follows energy issues for the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. "There's a few measures to increase domestic production . . . and that would not do much."

Negotiators early this morning ironed out the final differences between the House- and Senate-passed versions of an energy bill that has been high on the president's agenda since shortly after he took office in 2001 and created an energy task force headed by Vice President Cheney. The legislation would create billions of dollars' worth of tax breaks and other federal subsidies to encourage oil and gas production, to reduce pollution at coal-burning power plants, and to encourage energy conservation. The bill also would require the use of billions of gallons of ethanol and other fuels derived from agricultural products.

Lawmakers resolved one of the most contentious issues in the legislation by agreeing not to protect manufacturers of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) from defective product lawsuits. The Senate blocked final passage of an energy bill in 2003 after such legal protections were added.

But the emerging package does not do what some analysts said would have the greatest impact on reducing U.S. oil demand and cutting imports: a requirement to increase fuel-efficiency standards for trucks and cars. Under strong pressure from the automobile industry, the House and Senate rejected higher efficiency standards. Lawmakers argued that doing so would require redesigns that would make vehicles unsafe and result in a loss of manufacturing jobs -- arguments sharply disputed by advocates of fuel efficiency.

"The single biggest step that Congress could take to reduce our oil dependency is to significantly increase the fuel economy standards of the cars and trucks that Americans buy and drive," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which works on environmental issues.

As oil prices soared during the past year, and remained above $50 a barrel for weeks, lawmakers have raised increasing concerns about being reliant on foreign oil, particularly from the Middle East. High oil prices have pushed the price of gasoline to well over $2 a gallon.

From the start, Bush and GOP lawmakers have sold their energy policies as a means of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. "Our dependence on foreign oil is like a foreign tax on the American dream, and that tax is growing every year," Bush said in May. During the Senate debate on the energy bill last month, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said: "We must take steps to reduce our dependence on foreign countries and thereby enhance our energy security at home. When we rely on other nations for more than half our oil supply, we simply put our security at risk."

Some lawmakers say there will be plenty in the legislation to address the problem of dependence on foreign oil. The White House has not analyzed how the legislation would affect reliance on imports, spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said.

"Both bills will improve the nation's energy security by expanding the use of new technologies, increasing the diversity of renewable energy sources and reducing energy consumption through greater conservation and energy efficiency," she said.

The United States consumes more than 20 million barrels of oil a day, an amount forecast to grow steadily. The House-Senate conference committee rejected a measure calling on the president to reduce oil consumption by 1 million barrels a day by 2015. The Bush administration opposed the provision, saying it would require increasing fuel-efficiency standards beyond what technology would allow at an affordable price.

The provision that would have the biggest impact, analysts agreed, is a requirement for the United States to increase the amount of ethanol and other agriculture-derived fuels. That would offset some gasoline use, they said.

Lawmakers agreed to a measure calling for slightly less ethanol and other agriculture-derived fuels than called for in Senate legislation. The Senate measure would have reduced oil imports by about 0.8 percent less than they otherwise would have been in 2012, according to federal government estimates.

The energy legislation would provide tax breaks and other subsidies that supporters say would encourage increased domestic oil production to further reduce reliance on foreign oil. Domestic production has been declining for years.

Bush has pushed to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, to tap what geologists say is one of the few remaining areas of the country that hold promise for major new production. Without that new drilling, net oil imports would be 68 percent in 2025, according to the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration. With drilling in the refuge, net oil imports would account for 64 percent of consumption in 2025, according to the EIA.

A provision to open the refuge -- a highly contentious issue because of the strong opposition from environmentalists and many Democrats -- was not included in the final version of the energy bill. But such a measure has been included in budget language, and final votes are expected in Congress in September.

The energy legislation also calls for money to be spent on research into hydrogen, alternative fuels, efficiency and technology, which supporters said could ultimately help reduce oil consumption. The Senate version of the legislation calls for tax breaks for hybrid vehicles, which supporters said would help reduce oil demand.

Environmentalists cited a provision included in the legislation that they said would result in more oil consumption and greater imports: extension of a provision designed to encourage auto manufacturers to produce vehicles that can run on either gasoline or a fuel blend of 85 percent ethanol.

The provision allows automakers to receive fuel economy credit -- and increase production of less-fuel-efficient vehicles -- even if owners use only gasoline, environmentalists said. Few gas stations sell the ethanol blend, and many of the cars end up being fueled by gasoline, they said.

Struggling U.S. Senators

2005-07-23T21:05:00.000-08:00

Well, those poor struggling senators ... how about a first step by having an energy bill that would reduce our consumption of fossil fuels with such simple measures as more efficient fuel standards for our vehicles? Nah, they'll cave to the auto and oil industries. Just you watch.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072102235_pf.html
washingtonpost.com

Senators Struggle to Act on Global Warming

By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 22, 2005; A03

After listening to some of the world's preeminent climate researchers yesterday, a bipartisan group of senators said they saw the need to take quick action on global warming but were struggling to reach consensus on what policy to adopt.

Several Republicans on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said during the two-hour hearing that they would consider adopting mandatory limits on emissions of heat-trapping gases but that they prefer the approach of promoting new technologies that do not contribute to the problem.

"I don't think the issue is whether we have a major international problem; the question is: How do we solve it?" said the panel's chairman, Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.). "I'm looking for a solution, but I'm not going to join the crowd that thinks it's simple."

Last month, the Senate adopted a nonbinding resolution by a vote of 53 to 44 calling for a "national program of mandatory market-based limits and incentives on greenhouse gases" that would not hurt the U.S. economy and would encourage other polluting nations to follow suit. The Senate defeated a bipartisan bill by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) that sought to establish a mandatory federal cap on heat-trapping emissions, and Domenici said he hoped his committee's climate change hearings would help lawmakers devise an alternative.

The scientists testifying yesterday, including National Academy of Sciences President Ralph J. Cicerone and Nobel prize-winning chemist Mario Molina, all said the world is warming at a dangerous rate, and that human activity accounts for much of the recent temperature rise.

"Climate change is perhaps the most worrisome global environmental problem confronting human society today," said Molina, a professor at the University of California at San Diego. Molina added that while experts are still uncertain about exactly how global warming will play out in future decades, "not knowing with certainty how the climate system will respond should not be an excuse for inaction."

Several committee Republicans, including some who had questioned climate change predictions in the past, said they agree the world has reached a scientific consensus on global warming.

"I have come to believe, along with many of my colleagues, that there is a substantial human effect on the environment," said Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho), who has opposed mandatory curbs on greenhouse gas emissions and voted against last month's "sense of the Senate" resolution on climate change.

Some GOP senators, such as Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), went further. In an interview, Murkowski said that "there's an emerging consensus we've got to deal" with climate change, adding it would be "tough" to cut greenhouse gases sufficiently through voluntary programs alone.

"I'd rather we don't have to [adopt mandatory limits], but we know what happens when we leave it to our good judgment. Sometimes we don't see the benefits," she said.

Some Republican panel members said they would be more open to the witnesses' call to arms if the scientists would embrace nuclear power, which does not release carbon dioxide as coal-fired power plants do. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) lectured the climatologists from the dais, saying that installing solar panels "might be nice for a desert island, but that's not going to work . . . in America."

Cicerone replied that nuclear power "has tremendous potential. People just want to see it done safely."

It remains unclear how quickly lawmakers would be willing to act on climate change proposals. Domenici said in an interview that he plans to bring in a group of global warming skeptics to testify, and he would prefer requiring that American companies install cleaner technology, rather than setting specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

"They're not saying we have to do something tomorrow morning," Domenici said of the scientists.

Don't get violent in the nude

2005-07-21T19:00:00.000-08:00

Recent reports about the video game Grand Theft Auto San Andreas indicate that it had some secret sex scenes that some folks figured out how to unlock. The game now sports an "Adult Only" rating. Now killing and running people over with your car and other more direct implements/weapons of destruction are okay for kids, but you'd better not let them realize what they are supposed to do with their weapons of love. What a duplicitous society we live in.

I told you so

2005-07-02T18:12:00.000-08:00

Once in too rare a while, I stop my daily routines long enough to contemplate the long term view, while still denying that my nightmares are real (let's not go there). Today's long term contemplation came where I may do-do my greatest thinking (pun intended) - on the can.

Ever since I was young, I recall reading materials in reach of the toilet in my homes. General interest magazines usually, several cuts above the Readers Digest, such as Mother Jones, National Geographic, the occasional Utney Reader, Church and State, coupled with a few of the computer magazines I get such as Network Mag.

Today's reading was in National Geographic on the nature of the universe. It seems that in 20 billion years or so, our universe will fall into areas in space known as dark matter. Think of our current universe as a depression in a trampoline from a bowling ball. Everything as we know it - poof! If that's the case, why should we be concerned about all our current problems? My wife says I'm pretty stretched (a kinder word than she actually used). Fmr Alaska Legislator Rick Halford commented that he thought he was a forwarding looking thinker, but I was way beyond him. Of course, I wasn't talking Einstein's Theory of Relativity at the time. Actually, I was talking into the future to where we are now. And, without hubris, I was right. Sadly, we as a state mostly went the wrong way. I really do hate "I told you so"'s.

Why can't we get along

2005-06-30T20:23:00.000-08:00

"Why can't we get along?" is a question attribute to Rodney King, the dysfunctional fellow who got beat up a few years ago in E. L.A. and the accidental video was broadcast around the world.

I don't have that extreme a situation, but occasional I experience an interpersonal conflict with someone that can't be rationally resolved as, the other person (of course it's usually the "other one") isn't (rational).

We know the many times where email has been a source of misunderstanding, as there are no audio or visual cues we use, or even more embarrassing like Reply All by accident. Much like a video in the ease of dissemination, I've tried to be careful in netiquette and often insure that potentially con issues be concluded with a smiley face (:-) or a happy "Cheers" or "All the best" at the end.

Still email is a way to communicate common information to a group most efficiently. I think of the many community organization boards I've served or am serving on. Often times, I try to fill a typical hole, such as developing a webpage, as orgs don't have many web savvy directors. Past and present, I've done this to fill needs of Alaska Folk Music, contradance, the Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Esro Road Association, UAF Staff Council, Unofficial Chena Hot Springs Road Construction Page, Golden Valley Electric Ass'n, etc. The intent is to fill the gap of information, the strategy is to be open about how each organization operates. It is often bucking a tendency in smaller organizations toward cliques and cronyism, inertia of bureaucracy in large ones. At a certain point, I'll lobby to get more professional or open in the organization's dealings, then others feel threatened and defensive. Understandable. But if we listened to each other with compassion and respect, couldn't we just get along? That's what comity is.

Lest we do the right thing

2005-06-25T14:30:00.000-08:00

The U.S. Senate recently passed their version of the Energy Bill, offering more of the same, along with the excuse that increasing auto fuel efficiencies, particular for the exempt SUVs couldn't be increased without damaging the economy. And the bulk of the U.S. $250 mm tax breaks to the mostly rich, not to mention over U.S. $200 mm for a war in Iraq based upon the flip-flop excuses of Bush & Co?

There is a concerted effort by intelligent rational people (and governments) to bring a commitment from the U.S. at the upcoming G-8 conference. There is also a big effort for increased U.S. funds to eliminate poverty in Africa - Live Aid. A U.S. $2 bb contribution is a very small portion of the U.S. $ 40 mm we spend on arms and "defense".

What sad priorities we have.

Greenhouse gas limits won't damage the economy

2005-04-16T12:07:00.000-08:00

A report, just released from the Energy Information Administration, an independent arm of the U.S. Energy Department, indicates that mandatory limits on U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would not significantly affect economic growth rates through 2025, countering the Bush administration and general Republican perspective to the contrary. The report can be found at www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/

I've long asserted that FAILURE to limit greenhouse gases will harm the economy from increased mitigation costs resulting from what we might think of as natural weather or ecologically related disasters and disruptions. One of a few cries in the wilderness of short term corporate greed.

Bush favors conservation

2005-04-16T12:05:00.000-08:00

President Bush, in his radio address today, spoke of the need for increased energy conservation, a rare citation indeed from him, in a time of record high oil prices. At the same time, he pressed for passage of his energy bill which includes ANWR drilling, but fails to even address better auto mileage standards. These standards, which haven't substantively changed since 1980, currently exempt SUVs as they are considered trucks by the standards. During the Arab Oil Embargo of the mid 70's, we started to make some real progress, but then just stopped.

I'm not suggesting we ban SUVs or even reduce horsepower, but industry shows little incentive to improve efficiency of fuel consumption, which is why the government sets basic standards. Hybrids and hydrogen offer promise, but only address a small part or a distant future solution.

It seems bizarre that our leaders press for yet more development (and continued consumption) without first applying our renown technical expertise toward getting more efficient use out of this limited and non-renewable resource. Why would consumers not want to get better mileage for the same vehicles? Reduced consumption from improved efficiency would lead to better energy security from less imports, less foreign debt, and probably help air quality along the way, a classic win-win for the country and consumers. Why do our Congressional representatives not do their part by including increased auto mileage standards in the energy bill?

I offer only the question and leave it to the reader to ask this of their Congressional representative and senators.

Social Security Scam and Equity

2005-02-25T23:41:00.000-09:00

I'm not saying anything that everyone shouldn't already know. Bush cries "Social Security is a crisis" and everyone is expected to jump. You'd think we'd be wiser after he cried "wolf" on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. His backers are even sending in the Swift Boat dogs to smear AARP, despite their (ill advised, IMHO) support of Bush's disastrously expensive prescription drug plan. And he says Social Security is a crisis (40 years from now). If he wants a crisis, try climate change. There will be more fiscal costs to that than Social Security. Actually, if the federal government paid back what it has borrowed against the Social Security Trust Fund, it would be solvent into the distant future.

While Kerry was defined by his opposition (and even supporters) as a flip-flopper, how did Bush escape the same label over something more important, like why we attacked Saddam Hussein's regime in the first place.

A cousin forwarded me this comment:

The Democrats' mistake was thinking that a disastrous war and national bankruptcy would be of concern to the electorate.

The Republicans correctly saw that the chief concern of the electorate was to keep gay couples from having an abortion.

I have to really wonder about our gullibility if not downright stupidity to not see what is right in front of our faces.

Warms the heart

2005-02-02T21:49:00.000-09:00

From the unbelievable chaos of the tsunami disaster came an incredible tale from Jim France of the Pavilion Hotel Group in Bangkok.

At a resort on Phuket, one of the most popular attractions is (was) elephant rides. As many as eight people on one elephant, first into the surrounding forest, then down to the beach, to lunch at a fresh water lagoon, then back to the hotel. The elephants (nine) were kept chained to in-ground posts, not because they needed to be, but because it made the mothers feel better because their children seemed safe from a tromping when feeding the beasts.

About twenty minutes before the first wave hit, the elephants becamse extremely agitated and unruly. Four had just returned from a trip and their handlers had not yet chained them. They helped the other five tear free from their chains. They all then climbed a hill and started bellowing. Many people followed them up the hill. Then the waves hit. After the waves subsided, the elephants charged down from the hill, and started picking up children with their trunks and running them back up the hill; when all the children were taken care of, they started helping the adults.

They rescued forty-two people. Then, they returned to the beach and carried up four dead bodies, one of a child. Not until the task was done would they allow their handlers to mount them. Then with the handlers atop, they began moving wreckage.

Many super-human and super-sentient capacities were being exhibited through these wonderful elephant beings, including Divine Love for one another and their fellow humans through the transitions they were going through.

Guru Bandhu Khalsa

Alaskan independence?

2005-02-01T22:28:00.000-09:00

Thanks go to Alaska State Reps Woodie Salmon, Sharon Cissna, Les Gara and Beth Kerttula for showing some independence and guts in coming out against House Joint Resolution 4 last week. This resolution is the annual down-on-the-knees begging Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

I'm not surprised but saddened other intelligent reps didn't join them. Kind of like refusing the ethanol pledge that Presidential candidates are supposed to take in Iowa. We Alaskans aren't as independent as we might like to think we are.

If we put as much energy (pun intended) into trying to get better mileage on our vehicles, we'd save far more oil than ANWR would produce. How about a resolution requesting Congress to close the loophole on SUVs and the CAFE standards? Better mileage "would reduce our nation's future need for imported oil, help balance the nation's trade deficit, and significantly increase the nation's security" as well as save our constituents money at the pump, while indirectly reducing our insurance rates.

Sound familiar? It can sound as mom and apple pie (Alaska style) as HJR 4. As was said more than once since the boom of the Prudhoe Bay-Valdez oil pipeline, "Oh, God, please grant us another pipeline. We promise not to piss it away this time". Sure thing.

Giving students respect

2005-01-29T16:38:00.000-09:00

I couldn't resist replying to this bad advice from Dear Abby Jan 29, 2005

----DEAR ABBY: At my school, a period of time is dedicated to discussing world events. My teacher, "Mrs. Jones," has often shared her opinions about world events and our government with us. She has very strong opinions and usually gets upset when anyone disagrees with her. One day when she was talking, I told her I did not agree with her opinion and got detention for it. Personally, I don't think I deserved one.
I understand that I shouldn't be rude to teachers, but I believe that my comment was respectful. Was I out of line? -- UNCERTAIN IN FRANKLIN LAKES, N.J.

DEAR UNCERTAIN: If the comment was disruptive, it may have been. It would have been more diplomatic had you voiced your disagreement after the class was over.

And my reply:

Regarding Uncertain in Franklin Lakes, NJ who was given detention for expressing a respectful contrary opinion to her teacher. I think we and our teachers need to encourage our kids to be able to respectfully share their views, especially during a discussion period. Sounds to me that the teacher, not the student, is out of line and disruptive and should be offered additional professional training on working with students. The student should start with her counselor or the principal and, if she doesn't receive satisfaction, take it to the school board. Again, we need to encourage students to be involved in their system.- A Parent of Teens In Fairbanks Alaska

The Grinch gave back Christmas

2004-12-21T19:02:00.000-09:00

Well, around the western world, it's the holiday season, school is about out everywhere, and many small transgressions are forgiven, folks not wanting to be grinch-like. How Dr. Seuss has revolutionized our world!

So I'll be charitable and, if I can't say anything nice about George W., I won't say anything at all.

Person of the Year 2004

2004-12-19T13:28:00.000-09:00

It is now revealed that Time magazine has awarded its Person of the Year designation on George Bush. The rationale was for his "sticking to his guns". Since the award is for better or worse (Adolf Hitler in 1938, Joseph Stalin in 1939 and 1942, and Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini) proving Bush is in good company, I'd award it instead for destroying our international credibility and abrogating our morale leadership in the world with:

1. Rejection of the Kyoto Protocol dealing with global climate change.

2. Blowing our nation's surplus and putting us hundreds of billions into the red with a $220+ billion war we didn't need and a giant tax cut, most of which went to those who didn't need it and he's still not satisfied, wanting to destroy our economic future more with continued tax cuts, war, and social security changes. Showing an amazing ability to ignore realities in favor of his self-described godly vision.

I'd submit ours is not a nation with God on our side, rather sanctimonious when you think about it. As others have said, we should be more concerned about being on God's side. But, as a cowboy nation, we do need Injuns, as Dick Gregory said a few decades ago. More on this some other time.

But for the international Man of the Year, here are the three prize winners.

Oh God Please Give Us Another Pipeline ...

2004-12-18T01:42:00.000-09:00

... We Promise Not to Blow It This Time.

Well, not really. Powers that be here in Alaska are praying and avidly indicating their desire to prostitute themselves to get us a gas pipeline.

Now using natural gas instead of coal or oil is a good idea environmentally, but we don't have to make it such a big project and export it. We could build us a small pipeline and just use it in state. Arlen Tussing, the renown resource economist, told me he thought we'd have between 500-1000 years of gas if only consumed in Alaska.

A smaller project would bring less of a shock to our economy and quality of life. Alaskans might even be able to fill most of the jobs, unlike big resource projects that bring all the Texans and Okies up here. Yes, I was here during the oil pipeline construction and what a mess it made of our infrastructure and pain and suffering to those who just wanted to live here.

Instead, in the land where taxes are only on landowners' real estate, we'll destroy our infrastructure and quality of life for a short term boom, which will of course be followed by a bust after all those folks that came up for the quick buck head back Outside.

Somewhat smaller projects such as the boondoggle Star Wars 2 project at Ft. Greely and military construction spurred by generous donations from our Senior Senator and of course justified by our little winning the peace endeavor in Iraq are already stressing regular construction projects, who can't compete.

It does seem as if blind short-term greed rules the world. Where are the meek when we need them?

Oil, Resources, and Responsibility

2004-12-13T21:33:00.000-09:00

Okay, so what qualifies as Common Sense and Comity?

How about wise use of non-renewable resources? We know the supply is finite, yet we allow our needs to be formed around the fastest method of consumption. When we had the pants scared off us with the Arab Oil Embargo in the mid-1970's, it was amazing how many smart things we did to reduce our consumption Yet by about 1980 when the heat (ha) was off, we went right back to our wasteful ways. Increasing auto efficiency actually fell substantially when we allowed SUVs to be classified as trucks, thus exempt from improvement like cars. It is only through personal price shocks do we begin to modify our behavior, even though our longer term interest would benefit from conservation. Do many in power seriously suggest taxing non-renewables to 1) encourage conservation and increased efficiencies 2) use the tax to subsidize the development of conservation and increased efficiencies. The net result could be the same amount of money spent, but far fewer non-renewables consumed (with the obvious reduction in the U.S. of need for foreign oil imports). This is obvious win-win territory, folks.

I submit that governments, who we ostensibly trust to look after our long term interest, are the bodies that must create the environment to bring about the change needed. At least in the U.S., whether Democrat or Republican in control, the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) of vehicles has only barely crawled upwards since 1980. Why is this, you might ask? I asked Sen. Ted Stevens, outgoing most powerful chair of the Appropriations Committee, about this time last year and he said he and his Senate colleagues were willing to let the market dictate the price. I assert that we have waited 20 years too long and that government's place is to protect us from the corporate greed which we cannot really resist. (Reflect back on Teddy Roosevelt bucking the industrial monopolists as president, then compare him to George Bush).

Some say the auto industry fought against better fuel efficiency, since they thought the only way to make vehicles more efficient was to make them lighter. I can hear the auto insurance industry going "YES", as lighter SUVs would cause less damage when they hit others in accidents. And the auto industry would gain from a little investment in research and be able to increase the cost of vehicles. So if not them, that only leaves the oil industry. This is no big surprise.

The oil industry makes its bucks on extraction and transportation. The less that amount is, they make less money. And looking at who controls the political agenda through donations to politicians, the top giver is the oil industry. We the people could not begin to equal the power by the lobbyists and corporate givers, much less touch the influence the oil industry has on many countries.

Now, as an Alaskan for over 30 years, I've seen how the oil industry bought up the state. Some would even argue the citizens were bought off with our Permanent Fund dividend program, though that was not the original intent. But more on Alaska and oil in another episode. If you can't wait, I offer a link now:
http://www.akhistorycourse.org/articles/article.php?artID=140

So to the original question, Common Sense would indicate that we would get the biggest bang for the buck, or every gallon of oil we consume. Industry works against that common sense and they use their influence and control to make sure the political system doesn't mess with them in their desire for the short term profit. Comity would suggest that we respect others and not leave the world a worse place from pollution, climate change, and the wasted remains left after we get done using the best part of whatever it is we consume.

The big question is how to overcome our short term greed to allow a better long term future in our world. The Kyoto Protocol http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php, though not perfect, was a big first step. Yet the U.S. Senate refused to ratify it after the Clinton administration signed it, and now George W. Bush rejects it outright, not seeming to care that it will cost all of us us long term. He rejected the conclusions of the most recent and internationally recognized climate change study of the Arctic polar regions (as did Ted Stevens, who indirectly helped fund some of it) http://amap.no/acia/ . Oh no, Mr. Mankind can't be responsible for this documented change! We spend far more on insuring our homes and cars against disaster than we spend on mitigating climate change and the odds against personal disaster are much less than the odds we are messing with the climate through our impact to the atmosphere of our home planet. The costs of mitigation are beyond coping and the longer we wait the greater those costs. Worried about Florida messing up another presidential election? In a generation, it's as possible as not that a good deal of Florida will be under water. Did you think the idea of the recent movie The Day After Tomorrow was far-fetched? While dramatized, there is science behind the impact suggested.

Earth will survive, our societies as we know them might not. This may be the first time on earth that climate change was brought about by mankind. And it won't be pretty.

End of gloom and doom for today.

A Beginning

2004-12-13T01:12:00.000-09:00

With so much chatter on the Internet, one wonders how to break through with something important enough to say and not appear to be blathering. I've been around the block a few times and so often felt as if I were yelling into the wilderness about a variety of issues. I thought I'd give this forum a try.

In the near term, I expect to discuss a number of important topics from climate change to open government and the public process. The blog title of "common sense" is offered and everyone probably thinks they know what it means (though many fail to practice it). I pair it with "comity", which I suggest adds a depth to common sense that transcends the personal perspective and self-interest by which most of us guide our daily lives.

For those of you who wonder what "comity" means, it is defined as: a state of mutual harmony, friendship, and respect, esp. between or among nations or people; civility, from the Latin comis `courteous, friendly'.